News

TOPLINE:

Donepezil was associated with improved verbal memory and enhanced recall and processing speed, compared with placebo, in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), with a favorable safety profile despite mild to moderate gastrointestinal side effects.

METHODOLOGY:

• A four-site, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 10-week clinical trial (MEMRI-TBI-D) was conducted between 2013 and 2019 to evaluate the efficacy of donepezil for verbal memory impairments following severe TBI.
• 75 adults (75% men; mean age, 37 years) with complicated mild, moderate, or severe nonpenetrating TBI at least 6 months prior to study participation were included and randomly assigned to receive donepezil (n = 37) or placebo (n = 38).
• Participants received 5 mg donepezil daily or matching placebo for 2 weeks, then donepezil at 10 mg daily or matching placebo for 8 weeks; treatment was discontinued at 10 weeks, with an additional 4-week observation period.
• Verbal memory was assessed using the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test–Revised (HVLT-R). The primary outcome measure was verbal learning, evaluated through the HVLT-R total recall (ie, Total Trials 1-3) score.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with placebo, donepezil was associated with significantly greater improvements in verbal learning in both modified intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses (P = .034 and .036, respectively).
• Treatment-responder rates were significantly higher in the donepezil group than in the placebo group (42 vs 18%; P = .03), with donepezil responders showing significant improvements in delayed recall and processing speed.
• Although there were no serious adverse events in either group, treatment-emergent adverse events were significantly more common in the donepezil group vs placebo (46% vs 8%; P < .001). No serious adverse events occurred in either group.
• Diarrhea and nausea were significantly more common in the donepezil group than in the placebo group (Fisher’s exact test: diarrhea, P = .03; nausea, P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This study demonstrates the efficacy of donepezil on severe, persistent verbal memory impairments after predominantly severe TBI, with significant benefit for a subset of persons with such injuries, as well as a relatively favorable safety and tolerability profile,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by David B. Arciniegas, MD, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora. It was published online in The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included a relatively small sample with predominantly severe TBI requiring hospitalization and inpatient rehabilitation. The sample characteristics limit the generalizability of the findings to persons with other severities of TBI, other types of memory impairments, or more complex neuropsychiatric presentations. The study population had an average of 14 years of education, making generalizability to individuals with lower education levels uncertain. Additionally, while measures of information processing speed and immediate auditory attention were included, specific measures of sustained or selective attention were not, making it difficult to rule out improvements in higher-level attention as potential contributors to the observed verbal memory performance improvements.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research, with in-kind support from TIRR Memorial Hermann. Four authors disclosed various financial and professional affiliations, including advisory roles with pharmaceutical and diagnostic companies, support from institutional awards, and involvement in programs funded by external organizations. One author served as the editor of The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, with an independent editor overseeing the review and publication process for this article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Donepezil was associated with improved verbal memory and enhanced recall and processing speed, compared with placebo, in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), with a favorable safety profile despite mild to moderate gastrointestinal side effects.

METHODOLOGY:

• A four-site, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 10-week clinical trial (MEMRI-TBI-D) was conducted between 2013 and 2019 to evaluate the efficacy of donepezil for verbal memory impairments following severe TBI.
• 75 adults (75% men; mean age, 37 years) with complicated mild, moderate, or severe nonpenetrating TBI at least 6 months prior to study participation were included and randomly assigned to receive donepezil (n = 37) or placebo (n = 38).
• Participants received 5 mg donepezil daily or matching placebo for 2 weeks, then donepezil at 10 mg daily or matching placebo for 8 weeks; treatment was discontinued at 10 weeks, with an additional 4-week observation period.
• Verbal memory was assessed using the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test–Revised (HVLT-R). The primary outcome measure was verbal learning, evaluated through the HVLT-R total recall (ie, Total Trials 1-3) score.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with placebo, donepezil was associated with significantly greater improvements in verbal learning in both modified intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses (P = .034 and .036, respectively).
• Treatment-responder rates were significantly higher in the donepezil group than in the placebo group (42 vs 18%; P = .03), with donepezil responders showing significant improvements in delayed recall and processing speed.
• Although there were no serious adverse events in either group, treatment-emergent adverse events were significantly more common in the donepezil group vs placebo (46% vs 8%; P < .001). No serious adverse events occurred in either group.
• Diarrhea and nausea were significantly more common in the donepezil group than in the placebo group (Fisher’s exact test: diarrhea, P = .03; nausea, P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This study demonstrates the efficacy of donepezil on severe, persistent verbal memory impairments after predominantly severe TBI, with significant benefit for a subset of persons with such injuries, as well as a relatively favorable safety and tolerability profile,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by David B. Arciniegas, MD, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora. It was published online in The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included a relatively small sample with predominantly severe TBI requiring hospitalization and inpatient rehabilitation. The sample characteristics limit the generalizability of the findings to persons with other severities of TBI, other types of memory impairments, or more complex neuropsychiatric presentations. The study population had an average of 14 years of education, making generalizability to individuals with lower education levels uncertain. Additionally, while measures of information processing speed and immediate auditory attention were included, specific measures of sustained or selective attention were not, making it difficult to rule out improvements in higher-level attention as potential contributors to the observed verbal memory performance improvements.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research, with in-kind support from TIRR Memorial Hermann. Four authors disclosed various financial and professional affiliations, including advisory roles with pharmaceutical and diagnostic companies, support from institutional awards, and involvement in programs funded by external organizations. One author served as the editor of The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, with an independent editor overseeing the review and publication process for this article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Donepezil was associated with improved verbal memory and enhanced recall and processing speed, compared with placebo, in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), with a favorable safety profile despite mild to moderate gastrointestinal side effects.

METHODOLOGY:

• A four-site, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 10-week clinical trial (MEMRI-TBI-D) was conducted between 2013 and 2019 to evaluate the efficacy of donepezil for verbal memory impairments following severe TBI.
• 75 adults (75% men; mean age, 37 years) with complicated mild, moderate, or severe nonpenetrating TBI at least 6 months prior to study participation were included and randomly assigned to receive donepezil (n = 37) or placebo (n = 38).
• Participants received 5 mg donepezil daily or matching placebo for 2 weeks, then donepezil at 10 mg daily or matching placebo for 8 weeks; treatment was discontinued at 10 weeks, with an additional 4-week observation period.
• Verbal memory was assessed using the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test–Revised (HVLT-R). The primary outcome measure was verbal learning, evaluated through the HVLT-R total recall (ie, Total Trials 1-3) score.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with placebo, donepezil was associated with significantly greater improvements in verbal learning in both modified intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses (P = .034 and .036, respectively).
• Treatment-responder rates were significantly higher in the donepezil group than in the placebo group (42 vs 18%; P = .03), with donepezil responders showing significant improvements in delayed recall and processing speed.
• Although there were no serious adverse events in either group, treatment-emergent adverse events were significantly more common in the donepezil group vs placebo (46% vs 8%; P < .001). No serious adverse events occurred in either group.
• Diarrhea and nausea were significantly more common in the donepezil group than in the placebo group (Fisher’s exact test: diarrhea, P = .03; nausea, P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This study demonstrates the efficacy of donepezil on severe, persistent verbal memory impairments after predominantly severe TBI, with significant benefit for a subset of persons with such injuries, as well as a relatively favorable safety and tolerability profile,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by David B. Arciniegas, MD, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora. It was published online in The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included a relatively small sample with predominantly severe TBI requiring hospitalization and inpatient rehabilitation. The sample characteristics limit the generalizability of the findings to persons with other severities of TBI, other types of memory impairments, or more complex neuropsychiatric presentations. The study population had an average of 14 years of education, making generalizability to individuals with lower education levels uncertain. Additionally, while measures of information processing speed and immediate auditory attention were included, specific measures of sustained or selective attention were not, making it difficult to rule out improvements in higher-level attention as potential contributors to the observed verbal memory performance improvements.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research, with in-kind support from TIRR Memorial Hermann. Four authors disclosed various financial and professional affiliations, including advisory roles with pharmaceutical and diagnostic companies, support from institutional awards, and involvement in programs funded by external organizations. One author served as the editor of The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, with an independent editor overseeing the review and publication process for this article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

About one third of US adults aged 50-80 years report feeling lonely and socially isolated, a new study of data from 2018-2024 shows. While the levels have returned to the prepandemic range, investigators say the findings suggest clinicians should screen for loneliness and isolation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationally representative survey of US adults aged 50-80 years through the University of Michigan National Poll on Healthy Aging at six timepoints between 2018 and 2024.
• Data collection involved online surveys conducted using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel from 2018 to 2021, transitioning to online and phone surveys conducted using the National Opinion Research Center AmeriSpeak panel from 2022 to 2024.
• Sample sizes ranged between 2051 and 2576 respondents, with completion rates ranging from 61% to 78% across the survey periods.

TAKEAWAY:

• Loneliness rates among adults aged 50-80 years showed notable fluctuation, starting at 34% (95% CI, 31.7%-36.2%) in 2018, rising to 41% (95% CI, 39.1%-43.7%) in 2020, and returning to 33% (95% CI, 31.7%-35.1%) by 2024.
• Social isolation showed a similar pattern in the study group, starting at 27% (95% CI, 24.5%-28.8%) in 2018, peaking at 56% (95% CI, 53.4%-58.1%) in 2020, and declining to 29% (95% CI, 27.5%-30.9%) by 2024.
• Higher loneliness and social isolation rates were frequently reported among individuals who did not work, lived alone, had lower household incomes, and had self-reported fair and poor physical and mental health than those who reported excellent, very good, or good health.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings suggest that “much like routinely asking about diet and exercise, clinicians should consider screening older adults for loneliness and social isolation and connect them with appropriate resources,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Preeti N. Malani, MD, MSJ, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. It was published online on December 9 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by possible recall bias, reliance on self-reported data, lack of longitudinal results, and differences in survey timing, panels, and question framing across years. The findings may not have been applicable to excluded groups such as nursing home residents or individuals aged > 80 years, which limited their generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by AARP and Michigan Medicine and the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Health Systems Research. One author reported receiving consulting fees and honoraria from various organizations. Details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

About one third of US adults aged 50-80 years report feeling lonely and socially isolated, a new study of data from 2018-2024 shows. While the levels have returned to the prepandemic range, investigators say the findings suggest clinicians should screen for loneliness and isolation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationally representative survey of US adults aged 50-80 years through the University of Michigan National Poll on Healthy Aging at six timepoints between 2018 and 2024.
• Data collection involved online surveys conducted using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel from 2018 to 2021, transitioning to online and phone surveys conducted using the National Opinion Research Center AmeriSpeak panel from 2022 to 2024.
• Sample sizes ranged between 2051 and 2576 respondents, with completion rates ranging from 61% to 78% across the survey periods.

TAKEAWAY:

• Loneliness rates among adults aged 50-80 years showed notable fluctuation, starting at 34% (95% CI, 31.7%-36.2%) in 2018, rising to 41% (95% CI, 39.1%-43.7%) in 2020, and returning to 33% (95% CI, 31.7%-35.1%) by 2024.
• Social isolation showed a similar pattern in the study group, starting at 27% (95% CI, 24.5%-28.8%) in 2018, peaking at 56% (95% CI, 53.4%-58.1%) in 2020, and declining to 29% (95% CI, 27.5%-30.9%) by 2024.
• Higher loneliness and social isolation rates were frequently reported among individuals who did not work, lived alone, had lower household incomes, and had self-reported fair and poor physical and mental health than those who reported excellent, very good, or good health.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings suggest that “much like routinely asking about diet and exercise, clinicians should consider screening older adults for loneliness and social isolation and connect them with appropriate resources,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Preeti N. Malani, MD, MSJ, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. It was published online on December 9 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by possible recall bias, reliance on self-reported data, lack of longitudinal results, and differences in survey timing, panels, and question framing across years. The findings may not have been applicable to excluded groups such as nursing home residents or individuals aged > 80 years, which limited their generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by AARP and Michigan Medicine and the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Health Systems Research. One author reported receiving consulting fees and honoraria from various organizations. Details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

About one third of US adults aged 50-80 years report feeling lonely and socially isolated, a new study of data from 2018-2024 shows. While the levels have returned to the prepandemic range, investigators say the findings suggest clinicians should screen for loneliness and isolation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationally representative survey of US adults aged 50-80 years through the University of Michigan National Poll on Healthy Aging at six timepoints between 2018 and 2024.
• Data collection involved online surveys conducted using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel from 2018 to 2021, transitioning to online and phone surveys conducted using the National Opinion Research Center AmeriSpeak panel from 2022 to 2024.
• Sample sizes ranged between 2051 and 2576 respondents, with completion rates ranging from 61% to 78% across the survey periods.

TAKEAWAY:

• Loneliness rates among adults aged 50-80 years showed notable fluctuation, starting at 34% (95% CI, 31.7%-36.2%) in 2018, rising to 41% (95% CI, 39.1%-43.7%) in 2020, and returning to 33% (95% CI, 31.7%-35.1%) by 2024.
• Social isolation showed a similar pattern in the study group, starting at 27% (95% CI, 24.5%-28.8%) in 2018, peaking at 56% (95% CI, 53.4%-58.1%) in 2020, and declining to 29% (95% CI, 27.5%-30.9%) by 2024.
• Higher loneliness and social isolation rates were frequently reported among individuals who did not work, lived alone, had lower household incomes, and had self-reported fair and poor physical and mental health than those who reported excellent, very good, or good health.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings suggest that “much like routinely asking about diet and exercise, clinicians should consider screening older adults for loneliness and social isolation and connect them with appropriate resources,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Preeti N. Malani, MD, MSJ, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. It was published online on December 9 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by possible recall bias, reliance on self-reported data, lack of longitudinal results, and differences in survey timing, panels, and question framing across years. The findings may not have been applicable to excluded groups such as nursing home residents or individuals aged > 80 years, which limited their generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by AARP and Michigan Medicine and the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Health Systems Research. One author reported receiving consulting fees and honoraria from various organizations. Details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The newer biologics — interleukin (IL)–17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors — demonstrate comparable cardiovascular safety profiles to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In a retrospective cohort study, researchers conducted an emulated target trial analysis using data of 32,098 biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or PsA who were treated with one of the newer biologics (infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, and tildrakizumab) from the TriNetX Research Network between 2014 and 2022.
• Patients received TNF inhibitors (n = 20,314), IL-17 inhibitors (n = 5073), IL-12/23 inhibitors (n = 3573), or IL-23 inhibitors (n = 3138).
• A propensity-matched analysis compared each class of newer biologics with TNF inhibitors, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and medication use.
• The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; myocardial infarction and stroke) or venous thromboembolic events (VTE).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with patients who received TNF inhibitors, the risk for MACE was not significantly different between patients who received IL-17 inhibitors (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86-1.52), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.78), or IL-23 inhibitors (IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.61-1.38)
• The VTE risk was also not significantly different between patients who received IL-17 inhibitors (IRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.63-2.08), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.73-3.19), or IL-23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.64-3.25) compared with those who received TNF inhibitors.
• Subgroup analyses for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis alone confirmed consistent findings.
• Patients with preexisting hyperlipidemia and diabetes mellitus showed lower risks for MACE and VTE with newer biologics compared with TNF inhibitors. 

IN PRACTICE:

“No significant MACE and VTE risk differences were detected in patients with psoriasis or PsA between those receiving IL-17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors and those with TNF inhibitors,” the authors concluded. These findings, they added “can be considered by physicians and patients when making treatment decisions” and also provide “evidence for future pharmacovigilance studies.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tai-Li Chen, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital in Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online on December 27, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included potential residual confounding factors, lack of information on disease severity, and inclusion of predominantly White individuals.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The newer biologics — interleukin (IL)–17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors — demonstrate comparable cardiovascular safety profiles to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In a retrospective cohort study, researchers conducted an emulated target trial analysis using data of 32,098 biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or PsA who were treated with one of the newer biologics (infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, and tildrakizumab) from the TriNetX Research Network between 2014 and 2022.
• Patients received TNF inhibitors (n = 20,314), IL-17 inhibitors (n = 5073), IL-12/23 inhibitors (n = 3573), or IL-23 inhibitors (n = 3138).
• A propensity-matched analysis compared each class of newer biologics with TNF inhibitors, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and medication use.
• The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; myocardial infarction and stroke) or venous thromboembolic events (VTE).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with patients who received TNF inhibitors, the risk for MACE was not significantly different between patients who received IL-17 inhibitors (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86-1.52), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.78), or IL-23 inhibitors (IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.61-1.38)
• The VTE risk was also not significantly different between patients who received IL-17 inhibitors (IRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.63-2.08), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.73-3.19), or IL-23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.64-3.25) compared with those who received TNF inhibitors.
• Subgroup analyses for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis alone confirmed consistent findings.
• Patients with preexisting hyperlipidemia and diabetes mellitus showed lower risks for MACE and VTE with newer biologics compared with TNF inhibitors. 

IN PRACTICE:

“No significant MACE and VTE risk differences were detected in patients with psoriasis or PsA between those receiving IL-17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors and those with TNF inhibitors,” the authors concluded. These findings, they added “can be considered by physicians and patients when making treatment decisions” and also provide “evidence for future pharmacovigilance studies.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tai-Li Chen, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital in Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online on December 27, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included potential residual confounding factors, lack of information on disease severity, and inclusion of predominantly White individuals.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The newer biologics — interleukin (IL)–17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors — demonstrate comparable cardiovascular safety profiles to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In a retrospective cohort study, researchers conducted an emulated target trial analysis using data of 32,098 biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or PsA who were treated with one of the newer biologics (infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, and tildrakizumab) from the TriNetX Research Network between 2014 and 2022.
• Patients received TNF inhibitors (n = 20,314), IL-17 inhibitors (n = 5073), IL-12/23 inhibitors (n = 3573), or IL-23 inhibitors (n = 3138).
• A propensity-matched analysis compared each class of newer biologics with TNF inhibitors, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and medication use.
• The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; myocardial infarction and stroke) or venous thromboembolic events (VTE).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with patients who received TNF inhibitors, the risk for MACE was not significantly different between patients who received IL-17 inhibitors (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86-1.52), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.78), or IL-23 inhibitors (IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.61-1.38)
• The VTE risk was also not significantly different between patients who received IL-17 inhibitors (IRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.63-2.08), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.73-3.19), or IL-23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.64-3.25) compared with those who received TNF inhibitors.
• Subgroup analyses for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis alone confirmed consistent findings.
• Patients with preexisting hyperlipidemia and diabetes mellitus showed lower risks for MACE and VTE with newer biologics compared with TNF inhibitors. 

IN PRACTICE:

“No significant MACE and VTE risk differences were detected in patients with psoriasis or PsA between those receiving IL-17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors and those with TNF inhibitors,” the authors concluded. These findings, they added “can be considered by physicians and patients when making treatment decisions” and also provide “evidence for future pharmacovigilance studies.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tai-Li Chen, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital in Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online on December 27, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included potential residual confounding factors, lack of information on disease severity, and inclusion of predominantly White individuals.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Promising early results from an ongoing randomized, open-label, single-arm, phase 3 study could pave the way for a Pfizer product to become the second US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved gene therapy for hemophilia A.

In an efficacy population of 50 patients with hemophilia A, the AFFINE trial found that their mean annualized bleeding rate (ABR) fell from 4.73 pre-infusion with giroctocogene fitelparvovec to 1.24 post-infusion (week 12 to 15 or more months, −3.49, −6.06 to −0.91; P = .004), researchers reported earlier this month at American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting. Sixty-four percent had no bleeding events over a median follow-up of 33.6 months (14.5-44.4).

The ABR for treated bleeds fell from 4.08 to 0.07 (−4.01, −5.57 to −2.45; P < .0001), and 88% had no treated bleeds over the same follow-up period.

“The primary endpoint for this trial was a reduction in total bleeds in patients, and that was achieved,” hematologist and first author Andrew D. Leavitt, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco, said in an interview. “More impressive was the reduction in treated bleeds, a kind of a surrogate marker for bleeds of clinical significance to the individual. And as one would expect or hope to see in a gene therapy trial, there was a significant and marked reduction in the use of factor.”

Moving forward, he said, the message to clinicians is that “there’s every reason to believe that they will have yet another option for their patients.”

Gene Therapy on the Rise in Hemophilia 

Gene therapy has arisen as an approved therapy for hemophilia over just the last few years. Two gene therapies for hemophilia B have been approved by the FDA since 2022, and one was approved for hemophilia A, the more common type, in 2023.

As Leavitt noted, one-time treatment with gene therapy offers an alternative to treatment with blood factor, long the mainstay of hemophilia therapy.

“One of the real pluses of gene therapy is the potential to remove the burden of hemophilia, which is large and, I suspect, underappreciated even by providers,” he said. “You have to sit down with your patients and really get a real good sense of just how difficult it is for them to manage with many products on the market over the last few decades.”

Why is there a need for multiple gene therapy products? “A patient may have neutralizing antibodies against the proteins on the surface of gene therapy product A that prevents its use, but not on gene therapy B, which allows use of product B,” Leavitt said. “We need a few flavors so that we can offer gene therapy to the maximum number of interested patients.”

High Efficacy and an ‘Acceptable’ Safety Profile

For the study, researchers dosed 75 patients (mean age, 32.3 [19-59]; 100% men, 74.7% White and 18.7% Asian,) with hemophilia A with giroctocogene fitelparvovec, a hepatocyte-directed recombinant adeno-associated virus serotype 6 vector encoding a B-domain–deleted variant of human factor VIII. The efficacy population is 50 patients with at least 6 months of follow-up in the lead-in study.

The annualized infusion rate of exogenous FVIII was 124.39 mean annualized infusion rate prior to the treatment infusion vs 0.21 post-infusion, week 12 through at least 15 months (−124.18, −139.47 to −108.89; P < .0001).

Leavitt said the results are similar to other gene therapies for hemophilia in that “it is difficult to predict how high your factor level will become. There’s a broad range of outcomes for individuals, and the duration of expression remains an unknown.”

The study authors described the treatment as “generally well tolerated” with “an acceptable and manageable safety profile.”

Of the 75 subjects, 98.7% had adverse effects (AEs, 740 events) and 90.7% had treatment-related AEs. Common treatment-related AEs included hepatotoxicity (62.7%) and infusion-related reactions (73.3%). No subjects discontinued therapy due to AEs.

Nearly two thirds — 62.7% — of subjects used corticosteroids for a mean 114.6 days (11-296).

Study Findings ‘Look Really Good’

In an interview, Guy Young, MD, director of the Hemostasis and Thrombosis Program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and professor of pediatrics, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that “generally speaking, the new data looks really good.” Young, who didn’t take part in the study, noted that factor levels following treatment were high, and one subject actually had a thrombotic event and needed to be treated with an anticoagulant.

The high factor levels could actually be a sign of lasting benefit vs valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian), the sole FDA-approved gene therapy for hemophilia A, which is linked to significant drops in factor level after 6 months, he said. “Wouldn’t it be better to start really high?”

Gene therapy for hemophilia is highly expensive, although proponents noted that insurers may save money over the long run if patients don’t require prophylactic treatment or therapy for bleeds.

A Pfizer spokesman declined to comment on the new therapy’s potential cost. In regard to when the therapy may receive FDA approval, he said “Pfizer is discussing this data with regulatory authorities.”

Pfizer funded this study. Leavitt disclosed ties with HEMA, Merck, Catalyst, Genentech, Pfizer, BioMarin, and Sangamo. Other study authors reported relationships with Pfizer. Young disclosed ties with Pfizer and BioMarin.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Promising early results from an ongoing randomized, open-label, single-arm, phase 3 study could pave the way for a Pfizer product to become the second US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved gene therapy for hemophilia A.

In an efficacy population of 50 patients with hemophilia A, the AFFINE trial found that their mean annualized bleeding rate (ABR) fell from 4.73 pre-infusion with giroctocogene fitelparvovec to 1.24 post-infusion (week 12 to 15 or more months, −3.49, −6.06 to −0.91; P = .004), researchers reported earlier this month at American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting. Sixty-four percent had no bleeding events over a median follow-up of 33.6 months (14.5-44.4).

The ABR for treated bleeds fell from 4.08 to 0.07 (−4.01, −5.57 to −2.45; P < .0001), and 88% had no treated bleeds over the same follow-up period.

“The primary endpoint for this trial was a reduction in total bleeds in patients, and that was achieved,” hematologist and first author Andrew D. Leavitt, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco, said in an interview. “More impressive was the reduction in treated bleeds, a kind of a surrogate marker for bleeds of clinical significance to the individual. And as one would expect or hope to see in a gene therapy trial, there was a significant and marked reduction in the use of factor.”

Moving forward, he said, the message to clinicians is that “there’s every reason to believe that they will have yet another option for their patients.”

Gene Therapy on the Rise in Hemophilia 

Gene therapy has arisen as an approved therapy for hemophilia over just the last few years. Two gene therapies for hemophilia B have been approved by the FDA since 2022, and one was approved for hemophilia A, the more common type, in 2023.

As Leavitt noted, one-time treatment with gene therapy offers an alternative to treatment with blood factor, long the mainstay of hemophilia therapy.

“One of the real pluses of gene therapy is the potential to remove the burden of hemophilia, which is large and, I suspect, underappreciated even by providers,” he said. “You have to sit down with your patients and really get a real good sense of just how difficult it is for them to manage with many products on the market over the last few decades.”

Why is there a need for multiple gene therapy products? “A patient may have neutralizing antibodies against the proteins on the surface of gene therapy product A that prevents its use, but not on gene therapy B, which allows use of product B,” Leavitt said. “We need a few flavors so that we can offer gene therapy to the maximum number of interested patients.”

High Efficacy and an ‘Acceptable’ Safety Profile

For the study, researchers dosed 75 patients (mean age, 32.3 [19-59]; 100% men, 74.7% White and 18.7% Asian,) with hemophilia A with giroctocogene fitelparvovec, a hepatocyte-directed recombinant adeno-associated virus serotype 6 vector encoding a B-domain–deleted variant of human factor VIII. The efficacy population is 50 patients with at least 6 months of follow-up in the lead-in study.

The annualized infusion rate of exogenous FVIII was 124.39 mean annualized infusion rate prior to the treatment infusion vs 0.21 post-infusion, week 12 through at least 15 months (−124.18, −139.47 to −108.89; P < .0001).

Leavitt said the results are similar to other gene therapies for hemophilia in that “it is difficult to predict how high your factor level will become. There’s a broad range of outcomes for individuals, and the duration of expression remains an unknown.”

The study authors described the treatment as “generally well tolerated” with “an acceptable and manageable safety profile.”

Of the 75 subjects, 98.7% had adverse effects (AEs, 740 events) and 90.7% had treatment-related AEs. Common treatment-related AEs included hepatotoxicity (62.7%) and infusion-related reactions (73.3%). No subjects discontinued therapy due to AEs.

Nearly two thirds — 62.7% — of subjects used corticosteroids for a mean 114.6 days (11-296).

Study Findings ‘Look Really Good’

In an interview, Guy Young, MD, director of the Hemostasis and Thrombosis Program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and professor of pediatrics, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that “generally speaking, the new data looks really good.” Young, who didn’t take part in the study, noted that factor levels following treatment were high, and one subject actually had a thrombotic event and needed to be treated with an anticoagulant.

The high factor levels could actually be a sign of lasting benefit vs valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian), the sole FDA-approved gene therapy for hemophilia A, which is linked to significant drops in factor level after 6 months, he said. “Wouldn’t it be better to start really high?”

Gene therapy for hemophilia is highly expensive, although proponents noted that insurers may save money over the long run if patients don’t require prophylactic treatment or therapy for bleeds.

A Pfizer spokesman declined to comment on the new therapy’s potential cost. In regard to when the therapy may receive FDA approval, he said “Pfizer is discussing this data with regulatory authorities.”

Pfizer funded this study. Leavitt disclosed ties with HEMA, Merck, Catalyst, Genentech, Pfizer, BioMarin, and Sangamo. Other study authors reported relationships with Pfizer. Young disclosed ties with Pfizer and BioMarin.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Promising early results from an ongoing randomized, open-label, single-arm, phase 3 study could pave the way for a Pfizer product to become the second US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved gene therapy for hemophilia A.

In an efficacy population of 50 patients with hemophilia A, the AFFINE trial found that their mean annualized bleeding rate (ABR) fell from 4.73 pre-infusion with giroctocogene fitelparvovec to 1.24 post-infusion (week 12 to 15 or more months, −3.49, −6.06 to −0.91; P = .004), researchers reported earlier this month at American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting. Sixty-four percent had no bleeding events over a median follow-up of 33.6 months (14.5-44.4).

The ABR for treated bleeds fell from 4.08 to 0.07 (−4.01, −5.57 to −2.45; P < .0001), and 88% had no treated bleeds over the same follow-up period.

“The primary endpoint for this trial was a reduction in total bleeds in patients, and that was achieved,” hematologist and first author Andrew D. Leavitt, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco, said in an interview. “More impressive was the reduction in treated bleeds, a kind of a surrogate marker for bleeds of clinical significance to the individual. And as one would expect or hope to see in a gene therapy trial, there was a significant and marked reduction in the use of factor.”

Moving forward, he said, the message to clinicians is that “there’s every reason to believe that they will have yet another option for their patients.”

Gene Therapy on the Rise in Hemophilia 

Gene therapy has arisen as an approved therapy for hemophilia over just the last few years. Two gene therapies for hemophilia B have been approved by the FDA since 2022, and one was approved for hemophilia A, the more common type, in 2023.

As Leavitt noted, one-time treatment with gene therapy offers an alternative to treatment with blood factor, long the mainstay of hemophilia therapy.

“One of the real pluses of gene therapy is the potential to remove the burden of hemophilia, which is large and, I suspect, underappreciated even by providers,” he said. “You have to sit down with your patients and really get a real good sense of just how difficult it is for them to manage with many products on the market over the last few decades.”

Why is there a need for multiple gene therapy products? “A patient may have neutralizing antibodies against the proteins on the surface of gene therapy product A that prevents its use, but not on gene therapy B, which allows use of product B,” Leavitt said. “We need a few flavors so that we can offer gene therapy to the maximum number of interested patients.”

High Efficacy and an ‘Acceptable’ Safety Profile

For the study, researchers dosed 75 patients (mean age, 32.3 [19-59]; 100% men, 74.7% White and 18.7% Asian,) with hemophilia A with giroctocogene fitelparvovec, a hepatocyte-directed recombinant adeno-associated virus serotype 6 vector encoding a B-domain–deleted variant of human factor VIII. The efficacy population is 50 patients with at least 6 months of follow-up in the lead-in study.

The annualized infusion rate of exogenous FVIII was 124.39 mean annualized infusion rate prior to the treatment infusion vs 0.21 post-infusion, week 12 through at least 15 months (−124.18, −139.47 to −108.89; P < .0001).

Leavitt said the results are similar to other gene therapies for hemophilia in that “it is difficult to predict how high your factor level will become. There’s a broad range of outcomes for individuals, and the duration of expression remains an unknown.”

The study authors described the treatment as “generally well tolerated” with “an acceptable and manageable safety profile.”

Of the 75 subjects, 98.7% had adverse effects (AEs, 740 events) and 90.7% had treatment-related AEs. Common treatment-related AEs included hepatotoxicity (62.7%) and infusion-related reactions (73.3%). No subjects discontinued therapy due to AEs.

Nearly two thirds — 62.7% — of subjects used corticosteroids for a mean 114.6 days (11-296).

Study Findings ‘Look Really Good’

In an interview, Guy Young, MD, director of the Hemostasis and Thrombosis Program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and professor of pediatrics, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that “generally speaking, the new data looks really good.” Young, who didn’t take part in the study, noted that factor levels following treatment were high, and one subject actually had a thrombotic event and needed to be treated with an anticoagulant.

The high factor levels could actually be a sign of lasting benefit vs valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian), the sole FDA-approved gene therapy for hemophilia A, which is linked to significant drops in factor level after 6 months, he said. “Wouldn’t it be better to start really high?”

Gene therapy for hemophilia is highly expensive, although proponents noted that insurers may save money over the long run if patients don’t require prophylactic treatment or therapy for bleeds.

A Pfizer spokesman declined to comment on the new therapy’s potential cost. In regard to when the therapy may receive FDA approval, he said “Pfizer is discussing this data with regulatory authorities.”

Pfizer funded this study. Leavitt disclosed ties with HEMA, Merck, Catalyst, Genentech, Pfizer, BioMarin, and Sangamo. Other study authors reported relationships with Pfizer. Young disclosed ties with Pfizer and BioMarin.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face a higher risk for heart failure (HF) than those without the condition, with the elevated risk primarily driven by HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Mass General Brigham Biobank to investigate the risk for overall HF and its subtypes, particularly HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) and HFpEF, in patients with RA.
• They included 1445 patients newly diagnosed with RA (mean age, 51.4 years; 78.7% women) and 4335 matched comparators without RA.
• Patients with RA were identified using diagnosis codes and RA-related natural language processing concepts.
• HFpEF and HFrEF were defined as HF with an EF ≥ 50% and ≤ 40%, respectively; incidences for overall HF, HFpEF, and HFrEF were calculated per 1000 person-years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study identified 92 incident HF cases in the RA cohort and 157 in the non-RA cohort over a median follow-up of 10.3 years per patient.
• HFpEF was the predominant HF subtype in both cohorts, with a higher incidence in patients with RA than in those without the condition (4.33 vs 2.11 per 1000 person-years).
• Patients with RA showed a 79% higher risk for HF than those without the condition (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.38-2.32).
• Among the HF subtypes, patients with RA had a significantly increased risk for HFpEF (aHR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.43-2.77) but not for HFrEF.

IN PRACTICE:

“RA can be considered a human model for inflammation, and findings from this study support the notion that chronic inflammation increases risk for HFpEF,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Yumeko Kawano, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was conducted within an academic tertiary hospital system and involved participants from a biobank, which may have introduced selection bias and limited generalizability. The study did not account for post-baseline variables that could mediate the observed associations, such as the chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, steroids, or specific disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The study relied on the availability of clinically performed cardiology studies for HF subtyping, possibly introducing misclassification of HF.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author received support from the Ruth L. Kirschstein Institutional National Research Service Award, National Institutes of Health.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face a higher risk for heart failure (HF) than those without the condition, with the elevated risk primarily driven by HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Mass General Brigham Biobank to investigate the risk for overall HF and its subtypes, particularly HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) and HFpEF, in patients with RA.
• They included 1445 patients newly diagnosed with RA (mean age, 51.4 years; 78.7% women) and 4335 matched comparators without RA.
• Patients with RA were identified using diagnosis codes and RA-related natural language processing concepts.
• HFpEF and HFrEF were defined as HF with an EF ≥ 50% and ≤ 40%, respectively; incidences for overall HF, HFpEF, and HFrEF were calculated per 1000 person-years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study identified 92 incident HF cases in the RA cohort and 157 in the non-RA cohort over a median follow-up of 10.3 years per patient.
• HFpEF was the predominant HF subtype in both cohorts, with a higher incidence in patients with RA than in those without the condition (4.33 vs 2.11 per 1000 person-years).
• Patients with RA showed a 79% higher risk for HF than those without the condition (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.38-2.32).
• Among the HF subtypes, patients with RA had a significantly increased risk for HFpEF (aHR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.43-2.77) but not for HFrEF.

IN PRACTICE:

“RA can be considered a human model for inflammation, and findings from this study support the notion that chronic inflammation increases risk for HFpEF,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Yumeko Kawano, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was conducted within an academic tertiary hospital system and involved participants from a biobank, which may have introduced selection bias and limited generalizability. The study did not account for post-baseline variables that could mediate the observed associations, such as the chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, steroids, or specific disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The study relied on the availability of clinically performed cardiology studies for HF subtyping, possibly introducing misclassification of HF.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author received support from the Ruth L. Kirschstein Institutional National Research Service Award, National Institutes of Health.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face a higher risk for heart failure (HF) than those without the condition, with the elevated risk primarily driven by HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Mass General Brigham Biobank to investigate the risk for overall HF and its subtypes, particularly HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) and HFpEF, in patients with RA.
• They included 1445 patients newly diagnosed with RA (mean age, 51.4 years; 78.7% women) and 4335 matched comparators without RA.
• Patients with RA were identified using diagnosis codes and RA-related natural language processing concepts.
• HFpEF and HFrEF were defined as HF with an EF ≥ 50% and ≤ 40%, respectively; incidences for overall HF, HFpEF, and HFrEF were calculated per 1000 person-years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study identified 92 incident HF cases in the RA cohort and 157 in the non-RA cohort over a median follow-up of 10.3 years per patient.
• HFpEF was the predominant HF subtype in both cohorts, with a higher incidence in patients with RA than in those without the condition (4.33 vs 2.11 per 1000 person-years).
• Patients with RA showed a 79% higher risk for HF than those without the condition (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.38-2.32).
• Among the HF subtypes, patients with RA had a significantly increased risk for HFpEF (aHR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.43-2.77) but not for HFrEF.

IN PRACTICE:

“RA can be considered a human model for inflammation, and findings from this study support the notion that chronic inflammation increases risk for HFpEF,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Yumeko Kawano, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was conducted within an academic tertiary hospital system and involved participants from a biobank, which may have introduced selection bias and limited generalizability. The study did not account for post-baseline variables that could mediate the observed associations, such as the chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, steroids, or specific disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The study relied on the availability of clinically performed cardiology studies for HF subtyping, possibly introducing misclassification of HF.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author received support from the Ruth L. Kirschstein Institutional National Research Service Award, National Institutes of Health.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) exhibit riskier driving behaviors, compared with their nondepressed peers, including hard braking, cornering, and unpredictable driving patterns, new research showed.

Data for the study came from commercial vehicle data trackers installed in participants’ vehicles. After about a year of follow-up, the investigators found that MDD was associated with an increase in the amount and severity of risking driving, even after they controlled for antidepressant use.

Late-life depression often goes undiagnosed, and the new findings highlight the importance of routine depression screening and targeted interventions to ensure driving safety among older adults, the study team said.

“By using longitudinal, real-world driving data rather than controlled settings or self-reports, the study provides robust evidence of how MDD influences driving behaviors in day-to-day contexts,” first author Ganesh M. Babulal, PhD, OTD, with the Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, said in an interview.

“By analyzing the influence of antidepressant use and overall medication load, the study disentangles the effects of MDD from those of driver-impairing medications, further clarifying the unique contributions of depression to driving behaviors,” Babulal noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

Road Risks 

As the number of older adults grows, safe driving practices in this age group become increasingly crucial. By 2050, one quarter of drivers in the United States will be older than 65 years. MDD affects about 8% of US adults and is linked to cognitive impairments that may compromise driving safety.

Prior studies revealed a link between depression and increased car crash risk, regardless of age. And earlier research by Babulal and colleagues showed that older adults with depression were three times more likely to receive a marginal or failing score on a standardized road test.

To further study the issue, Babulal and colleagues examined the impact of MDD on naturalistic driving behaviors among older adults using longitudinal data.

Participants were recruited from the Driving Real-World In-Vehicle Evaluation System Project, where their daily driving behaviors were recorded using commercial vehicle data loggers installed in their personal vehicles.

The cohort included 85 adults with MDD (mean age, 69 years; 71% women) and 310 adults without MDD (mean age, 70 years; 49% women). The majority of participants in both groups were non-Hispanic White individuals.

Based on intercepts, adults with MDD had a propensity toward riskier driving habits with a higher frequency of speeding events and spending more time on the road than those without MDD, they found.

During a mean of 1.1 years of follow-up, compared with older adults without MDD, those with MDD exhibited significantly more hard braking (P < .001) and hard cornering events per trip (P = .04) over time. They also traveled farther from home and visited more unique destinations (P < .001 for both).

Over time, older adults also displayed increased entropy in driving patterns (P < .001), indicated less predictable driving routes.

“Driving unpredictability, as evidenced by increased random entropy, highlights the unique challenges posed by MDD in maintaining safe driving practices,” the researchers wrote.

Adjustment for antidepressant use, which could impair driving, or total medication burden did not change the findings, suggesting MDD independently affects driving.

“Most importantly, our findings demonstrate that MDD — a common and treatable illness in older adults — was associated with an increase in both the amount and magnitude of risky driving behaviors over time,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers noted that the study did not account for changes in depression severity over time and other psychiatric conditions co-occurring with MDD were not adjusted for. Also, situational factors like weather or traffic conditions were not assessed.

 

Clear Clinical Implications

There is a “pressing need” for targeted interventions to manage and mitigate the driving risks associated with late-life depression, the researchers wrote.

“The study emphasizes the need for interventions tailored to the mental health and driving behaviors of older adults. These could include cognitive retraining, driver rehabilitation programs, and routine depression screening to enhance road safety and preserve independence,” Babulal said.

“Encouraging older adults with MDD to self-regulate their driving habits (eg, avoiding night driving or high-traffic situations) and educating them about potential driving challenges related to their condition can enhance safety,” he added.

Commenting on this study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said it “adds nuance to our understanding of how depression can impact driving among older adults.

“While the connection between depression and a higher incident of crashes is known, this study demonstrates an association with riskier driving behaviors such as speeding,” Vahia said. “It highlights the importance of clinicians proactively initiating discussion of driving and safety when working with older adults with depressive symptoms.”

This work was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging. Babulal had no relevant disclosures. Vahia had served as a consultant for Otsuka.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) exhibit riskier driving behaviors, compared with their nondepressed peers, including hard braking, cornering, and unpredictable driving patterns, new research showed.

Data for the study came from commercial vehicle data trackers installed in participants’ vehicles. After about a year of follow-up, the investigators found that MDD was associated with an increase in the amount and severity of risking driving, even after they controlled for antidepressant use.

Late-life depression often goes undiagnosed, and the new findings highlight the importance of routine depression screening and targeted interventions to ensure driving safety among older adults, the study team said.

“By using longitudinal, real-world driving data rather than controlled settings or self-reports, the study provides robust evidence of how MDD influences driving behaviors in day-to-day contexts,” first author Ganesh M. Babulal, PhD, OTD, with the Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, said in an interview.

“By analyzing the influence of antidepressant use and overall medication load, the study disentangles the effects of MDD from those of driver-impairing medications, further clarifying the unique contributions of depression to driving behaviors,” Babulal noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

Road Risks 

As the number of older adults grows, safe driving practices in this age group become increasingly crucial. By 2050, one quarter of drivers in the United States will be older than 65 years. MDD affects about 8% of US adults and is linked to cognitive impairments that may compromise driving safety.

Prior studies revealed a link between depression and increased car crash risk, regardless of age. And earlier research by Babulal and colleagues showed that older adults with depression were three times more likely to receive a marginal or failing score on a standardized road test.

To further study the issue, Babulal and colleagues examined the impact of MDD on naturalistic driving behaviors among older adults using longitudinal data.

Participants were recruited from the Driving Real-World In-Vehicle Evaluation System Project, where their daily driving behaviors were recorded using commercial vehicle data loggers installed in their personal vehicles.

The cohort included 85 adults with MDD (mean age, 69 years; 71% women) and 310 adults without MDD (mean age, 70 years; 49% women). The majority of participants in both groups were non-Hispanic White individuals.

Based on intercepts, adults with MDD had a propensity toward riskier driving habits with a higher frequency of speeding events and spending more time on the road than those without MDD, they found.

During a mean of 1.1 years of follow-up, compared with older adults without MDD, those with MDD exhibited significantly more hard braking (P < .001) and hard cornering events per trip (P = .04) over time. They also traveled farther from home and visited more unique destinations (P < .001 for both).

Over time, older adults also displayed increased entropy in driving patterns (P < .001), indicated less predictable driving routes.

“Driving unpredictability, as evidenced by increased random entropy, highlights the unique challenges posed by MDD in maintaining safe driving practices,” the researchers wrote.

Adjustment for antidepressant use, which could impair driving, or total medication burden did not change the findings, suggesting MDD independently affects driving.

“Most importantly, our findings demonstrate that MDD — a common and treatable illness in older adults — was associated with an increase in both the amount and magnitude of risky driving behaviors over time,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers noted that the study did not account for changes in depression severity over time and other psychiatric conditions co-occurring with MDD were not adjusted for. Also, situational factors like weather or traffic conditions were not assessed.

 

Clear Clinical Implications

There is a “pressing need” for targeted interventions to manage and mitigate the driving risks associated with late-life depression, the researchers wrote.

“The study emphasizes the need for interventions tailored to the mental health and driving behaviors of older adults. These could include cognitive retraining, driver rehabilitation programs, and routine depression screening to enhance road safety and preserve independence,” Babulal said.

“Encouraging older adults with MDD to self-regulate their driving habits (eg, avoiding night driving or high-traffic situations) and educating them about potential driving challenges related to their condition can enhance safety,” he added.

Commenting on this study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said it “adds nuance to our understanding of how depression can impact driving among older adults.

“While the connection between depression and a higher incident of crashes is known, this study demonstrates an association with riskier driving behaviors such as speeding,” Vahia said. “It highlights the importance of clinicians proactively initiating discussion of driving and safety when working with older adults with depressive symptoms.”

This work was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging. Babulal had no relevant disclosures. Vahia had served as a consultant for Otsuka.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) exhibit riskier driving behaviors, compared with their nondepressed peers, including hard braking, cornering, and unpredictable driving patterns, new research showed.

Data for the study came from commercial vehicle data trackers installed in participants’ vehicles. After about a year of follow-up, the investigators found that MDD was associated with an increase in the amount and severity of risking driving, even after they controlled for antidepressant use.

Late-life depression often goes undiagnosed, and the new findings highlight the importance of routine depression screening and targeted interventions to ensure driving safety among older adults, the study team said.

“By using longitudinal, real-world driving data rather than controlled settings or self-reports, the study provides robust evidence of how MDD influences driving behaviors in day-to-day contexts,” first author Ganesh M. Babulal, PhD, OTD, with the Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, said in an interview.

“By analyzing the influence of antidepressant use and overall medication load, the study disentangles the effects of MDD from those of driver-impairing medications, further clarifying the unique contributions of depression to driving behaviors,” Babulal noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

Road Risks 

As the number of older adults grows, safe driving practices in this age group become increasingly crucial. By 2050, one quarter of drivers in the United States will be older than 65 years. MDD affects about 8% of US adults and is linked to cognitive impairments that may compromise driving safety.

Prior studies revealed a link between depression and increased car crash risk, regardless of age. And earlier research by Babulal and colleagues showed that older adults with depression were three times more likely to receive a marginal or failing score on a standardized road test.

To further study the issue, Babulal and colleagues examined the impact of MDD on naturalistic driving behaviors among older adults using longitudinal data.

Participants were recruited from the Driving Real-World In-Vehicle Evaluation System Project, where their daily driving behaviors were recorded using commercial vehicle data loggers installed in their personal vehicles.

The cohort included 85 adults with MDD (mean age, 69 years; 71% women) and 310 adults without MDD (mean age, 70 years; 49% women). The majority of participants in both groups were non-Hispanic White individuals.

Based on intercepts, adults with MDD had a propensity toward riskier driving habits with a higher frequency of speeding events and spending more time on the road than those without MDD, they found.

During a mean of 1.1 years of follow-up, compared with older adults without MDD, those with MDD exhibited significantly more hard braking (P < .001) and hard cornering events per trip (P = .04) over time. They also traveled farther from home and visited more unique destinations (P < .001 for both).

Over time, older adults also displayed increased entropy in driving patterns (P < .001), indicated less predictable driving routes.

“Driving unpredictability, as evidenced by increased random entropy, highlights the unique challenges posed by MDD in maintaining safe driving practices,” the researchers wrote.

Adjustment for antidepressant use, which could impair driving, or total medication burden did not change the findings, suggesting MDD independently affects driving.

“Most importantly, our findings demonstrate that MDD — a common and treatable illness in older adults — was associated with an increase in both the amount and magnitude of risky driving behaviors over time,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers noted that the study did not account for changes in depression severity over time and other psychiatric conditions co-occurring with MDD were not adjusted for. Also, situational factors like weather or traffic conditions were not assessed.

 

Clear Clinical Implications

There is a “pressing need” for targeted interventions to manage and mitigate the driving risks associated with late-life depression, the researchers wrote.

“The study emphasizes the need for interventions tailored to the mental health and driving behaviors of older adults. These could include cognitive retraining, driver rehabilitation programs, and routine depression screening to enhance road safety and preserve independence,” Babulal said.

“Encouraging older adults with MDD to self-regulate their driving habits (eg, avoiding night driving or high-traffic situations) and educating them about potential driving challenges related to their condition can enhance safety,” he added.

Commenting on this study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said it “adds nuance to our understanding of how depression can impact driving among older adults.

“While the connection between depression and a higher incident of crashes is known, this study demonstrates an association with riskier driving behaviors such as speeding,” Vahia said. “It highlights the importance of clinicians proactively initiating discussion of driving and safety when working with older adults with depressive symptoms.”

This work was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging. Babulal had no relevant disclosures. Vahia had served as a consultant for Otsuka.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) benefit from continuing immunotherapy beyond surgery?

The short answer: Oncologists don’t know for sure.

Since October 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved three checkpoint inhibitors — pembrolizumab (Keytruda), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and most recently nivolumab (Opdivo) — alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy before surgery and as monotherapy after surgery to treat resectable NSCLC.

But the trials leading to each approval had a major design flaw. The studies failed to distinguish when patients with resectable NSCLC benefited from immunotherapy — before surgery, after surgery, or at both points.

That missing piece has left oncologists without definitive guidance on how best to treat their patients with resectable disease. 

Jamie E. Chaft, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist and attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, was “surprised” that the FDA had approved the three immunotherapy combination regimens without this clarity. Clinicians are now left with studies that can’t evaluate the contribution of the neoadjuvant and adjuvant phases, she said.

But that may soon change.

In July, an FDA advisory committee met to discuss the pending approval of durvalumab.

During this July meeting, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) called out issues with AstraZeneca’s design of the trial, expressing concern that AstraZeneca had not followed the agency’s advice to compare patient outcomes with durvalumab in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant phases.

The ODAC panel ultimately voted unanimously in favor of requiring drug companies to demonstrate that patients need immunotherapy both before and after surgery in resectable NSCLC. Several panelists said this requirement should extend beyond NSCLC to other tumor types.

“We need to understand who needs what therapy when,” Daniel Spratt, MD, chairman of the FDA’s ODAC, told Medscape Medical News.

But even if the FDA does require drug companies to assess the benefit of immunotherapy pre- and post-surgery, will oncologists get the answers they need for their patients with resectable NSCLC? Or will the new costly trial design requirements dead-end progress in this space?

 

Treating Patients Without Clear Evidence

Despite the ODAC’s strong urging to require — not simply request — that drug companies show patients with resectable NSCLC benefit from immunotherapy in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, the advisory panel did not think durvalumab’s approval should be delayed until the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant question is answered.

A month later, in August, the FDA approved durvalumab for this indication.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) had already been approved 10 months earlier in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings in this setting. And most recently, in October, the FDA added nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) to these approvals.

No trial, however, identified when patients benefited from the drug.

Without this understanding, patients may be taking immunotherapy unnecessarily, at significant expense and toxicity risk.

“Toxicities from immunotherapy can occur at any time after initiation,” said Joshua Eric Reuss, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Georgetown University’s Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center in Washington, DC. And these “risks definitely continue into the adjuvant period.”

So far, the available evidence does suggest that the neoadjuvant phase of immunotherapy confers the greatest benefit, while adjuvant immunotherapy — which can last a year or longer — may expose patients to more costs and toxicities, with no clear benefit.

A 2024 meta-analysis, which included four trials of neoadjuvant-adjuvant immunotherapy and one trial of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable NSCLC, suggested that the addition of adjuvant immunotherapy did not improve event-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; P = .59) or overall survival (HR, 1.18; P = .51) compared with neoadjuvant immunotherapy alone.

According to Spratt, “It’s very clear that the neoadjuvant phase is the more important of the two phases.” Given that, “we’re probably overtreating some patients,” said Spratt, also chairman of Radiation Oncology at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

Chaft agreed that “there’s very little data that we need the postoperative phase, and what data we do have is post hoc and limited.”

This evidence gap “has created considerable dilemmas” for oncologists and patients who are faced with “the challenge of deciding which therapeutic options or approach are best suited for each individual,” experts wrote in recent consensus recommendations from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Clinicians may ultimately be left to make decisions about prescribing postoperative immunotherapy based on their experience and comfort level.

When Chaft’s patients have a pathologic complete response with immunotherapy and chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant phase, “I’m comfortable stopping because the data would suggest they’re almost certainly cured,” she said.

For patients who have viable disease after neoadjuvant therapy, continuing an immunotherapy postoperatively when it didn’t work preoperatively “is not going to make a difference,” Chaft explained. In these cases, Chaft would look to enroll them in a clinical trial evaluating a different regimen because of the risk for relapse.

With patients who did well preoperatively but still have tumor left at the time of surgery, she would discuss continuing the immunotherapy or participating in a trial, she said.

All the FDA-approved regimens are covered by insurance, said Chaft. Clinicians are most comfortable with pembrolizumab because it is the most widely used immunotherapy in advanced NSCLC, she said. But, she added, “there’s really no strong differentiating data between any of the studies; all the results look very comparable.”

When assessing whether a patient may benefit from immunotherapy after surgery, Reuss looks at a range of factors, including disease stage, histology, gene mutations, and pathologic response. Reuss also weighs patient preferences. A patient coming from another country might only want a neoadjuvant regimen, for instance, he said.

That “isn’t exactly the kind of the level one evidence that one likes to see when making treatment decisions,” said Reuss. “Without prospective data, all we can do is cross-trial comparisons and assessment of subgroups.”

If a new regimen comes along that improves outcomes or decision-making, “I think we would pivot to that in a heartbeat,” he said.

 

But Will FDA Follow ODAC’s Recommendation?

“ODAC has made their point clear,” said Chaft. “Our patients deserve to know that whatever added risk and cost they’re incurring is merited by a clinical outcome.”

Despite the ODAC’s recommendation, it’s not guaranteed that the FDA will follow it.

An FDA spokesperson did not confirm the agency’s decision on the matter but noted that the FDA is “incorporating the panel’s advice.”

Spratt thinks that, going forward, companies will be held to “a higher bar,” but it’s unclear what that bar will look like.

“Whether this is a mandate or a strong recommendation, I think industry is definitely paying attention,” Spratt said. Companies that do not follow the guidance may risk not having their drug approved, “unless it’s just an absolute huge slam dunk of a major benefit to patients.”

In fact, according to Chaft, drug makers seeking approvals of novel entities in this space “won’t have a choice” but to follow any new trial design requirements from the FDA.

Still, getting answers may be a challenge.

Drug companies with immunotherapies already on the market are unlikely to invest the resources to conduct trials comparing the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, said Chaft. “It will take too long and cost too much,” she said.

And it remains unclear whether drug companies will decide to stop pursuing novel agents if approvals will ultimately require more expensive and time-consuming trials.

According to Chaft, oncologists have been discussing protocols that could help fill the knowledge gaps. Such trials will be conducted by the National Cancer Institute’s Cooperative Groups, she noted. But it’s early days.

For the time being, with comparative data from phase 3 trials years away, oncologists will have to work with the limited evidence and individual patients in front of them.

Chaft disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Guardant Health, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and Merck. Reuss disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Arcus, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, CatalYm, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly, and that Georgetown has received research funding from Genentech/Roche, Verastem, Nuvalent, LUNGevity Foundation, Exelixis, Arcus, and Revolution Medicines. Spratt disclosed ties with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) benefit from continuing immunotherapy beyond surgery?

The short answer: Oncologists don’t know for sure.

Since October 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved three checkpoint inhibitors — pembrolizumab (Keytruda), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and most recently nivolumab (Opdivo) — alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy before surgery and as monotherapy after surgery to treat resectable NSCLC.

But the trials leading to each approval had a major design flaw. The studies failed to distinguish when patients with resectable NSCLC benefited from immunotherapy — before surgery, after surgery, or at both points.

That missing piece has left oncologists without definitive guidance on how best to treat their patients with resectable disease. 

Jamie E. Chaft, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist and attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, was “surprised” that the FDA had approved the three immunotherapy combination regimens without this clarity. Clinicians are now left with studies that can’t evaluate the contribution of the neoadjuvant and adjuvant phases, she said.

But that may soon change.

In July, an FDA advisory committee met to discuss the pending approval of durvalumab.

During this July meeting, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) called out issues with AstraZeneca’s design of the trial, expressing concern that AstraZeneca had not followed the agency’s advice to compare patient outcomes with durvalumab in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant phases.

The ODAC panel ultimately voted unanimously in favor of requiring drug companies to demonstrate that patients need immunotherapy both before and after surgery in resectable NSCLC. Several panelists said this requirement should extend beyond NSCLC to other tumor types.

“We need to understand who needs what therapy when,” Daniel Spratt, MD, chairman of the FDA’s ODAC, told Medscape Medical News.

But even if the FDA does require drug companies to assess the benefit of immunotherapy pre- and post-surgery, will oncologists get the answers they need for their patients with resectable NSCLC? Or will the new costly trial design requirements dead-end progress in this space?

 

Treating Patients Without Clear Evidence

Despite the ODAC’s strong urging to require — not simply request — that drug companies show patients with resectable NSCLC benefit from immunotherapy in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, the advisory panel did not think durvalumab’s approval should be delayed until the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant question is answered.

A month later, in August, the FDA approved durvalumab for this indication.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) had already been approved 10 months earlier in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings in this setting. And most recently, in October, the FDA added nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) to these approvals.

No trial, however, identified when patients benefited from the drug.

Without this understanding, patients may be taking immunotherapy unnecessarily, at significant expense and toxicity risk.

“Toxicities from immunotherapy can occur at any time after initiation,” said Joshua Eric Reuss, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Georgetown University’s Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center in Washington, DC. And these “risks definitely continue into the adjuvant period.”

So far, the available evidence does suggest that the neoadjuvant phase of immunotherapy confers the greatest benefit, while adjuvant immunotherapy — which can last a year or longer — may expose patients to more costs and toxicities, with no clear benefit.

A 2024 meta-analysis, which included four trials of neoadjuvant-adjuvant immunotherapy and one trial of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable NSCLC, suggested that the addition of adjuvant immunotherapy did not improve event-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; P = .59) or overall survival (HR, 1.18; P = .51) compared with neoadjuvant immunotherapy alone.

According to Spratt, “It’s very clear that the neoadjuvant phase is the more important of the two phases.” Given that, “we’re probably overtreating some patients,” said Spratt, also chairman of Radiation Oncology at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

Chaft agreed that “there’s very little data that we need the postoperative phase, and what data we do have is post hoc and limited.”

This evidence gap “has created considerable dilemmas” for oncologists and patients who are faced with “the challenge of deciding which therapeutic options or approach are best suited for each individual,” experts wrote in recent consensus recommendations from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Clinicians may ultimately be left to make decisions about prescribing postoperative immunotherapy based on their experience and comfort level.

When Chaft’s patients have a pathologic complete response with immunotherapy and chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant phase, “I’m comfortable stopping because the data would suggest they’re almost certainly cured,” she said.

For patients who have viable disease after neoadjuvant therapy, continuing an immunotherapy postoperatively when it didn’t work preoperatively “is not going to make a difference,” Chaft explained. In these cases, Chaft would look to enroll them in a clinical trial evaluating a different regimen because of the risk for relapse.

With patients who did well preoperatively but still have tumor left at the time of surgery, she would discuss continuing the immunotherapy or participating in a trial, she said.

All the FDA-approved regimens are covered by insurance, said Chaft. Clinicians are most comfortable with pembrolizumab because it is the most widely used immunotherapy in advanced NSCLC, she said. But, she added, “there’s really no strong differentiating data between any of the studies; all the results look very comparable.”

When assessing whether a patient may benefit from immunotherapy after surgery, Reuss looks at a range of factors, including disease stage, histology, gene mutations, and pathologic response. Reuss also weighs patient preferences. A patient coming from another country might only want a neoadjuvant regimen, for instance, he said.

That “isn’t exactly the kind of the level one evidence that one likes to see when making treatment decisions,” said Reuss. “Without prospective data, all we can do is cross-trial comparisons and assessment of subgroups.”

If a new regimen comes along that improves outcomes or decision-making, “I think we would pivot to that in a heartbeat,” he said.

 

But Will FDA Follow ODAC’s Recommendation?

“ODAC has made their point clear,” said Chaft. “Our patients deserve to know that whatever added risk and cost they’re incurring is merited by a clinical outcome.”

Despite the ODAC’s recommendation, it’s not guaranteed that the FDA will follow it.

An FDA spokesperson did not confirm the agency’s decision on the matter but noted that the FDA is “incorporating the panel’s advice.”

Spratt thinks that, going forward, companies will be held to “a higher bar,” but it’s unclear what that bar will look like.

“Whether this is a mandate or a strong recommendation, I think industry is definitely paying attention,” Spratt said. Companies that do not follow the guidance may risk not having their drug approved, “unless it’s just an absolute huge slam dunk of a major benefit to patients.”

In fact, according to Chaft, drug makers seeking approvals of novel entities in this space “won’t have a choice” but to follow any new trial design requirements from the FDA.

Still, getting answers may be a challenge.

Drug companies with immunotherapies already on the market are unlikely to invest the resources to conduct trials comparing the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, said Chaft. “It will take too long and cost too much,” she said.

And it remains unclear whether drug companies will decide to stop pursuing novel agents if approvals will ultimately require more expensive and time-consuming trials.

According to Chaft, oncologists have been discussing protocols that could help fill the knowledge gaps. Such trials will be conducted by the National Cancer Institute’s Cooperative Groups, she noted. But it’s early days.

For the time being, with comparative data from phase 3 trials years away, oncologists will have to work with the limited evidence and individual patients in front of them.

Chaft disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Guardant Health, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and Merck. Reuss disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Arcus, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, CatalYm, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly, and that Georgetown has received research funding from Genentech/Roche, Verastem, Nuvalent, LUNGevity Foundation, Exelixis, Arcus, and Revolution Medicines. Spratt disclosed ties with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) benefit from continuing immunotherapy beyond surgery?

The short answer: Oncologists don’t know for sure.

Since October 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved three checkpoint inhibitors — pembrolizumab (Keytruda), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and most recently nivolumab (Opdivo) — alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy before surgery and as monotherapy after surgery to treat resectable NSCLC.

But the trials leading to each approval had a major design flaw. The studies failed to distinguish when patients with resectable NSCLC benefited from immunotherapy — before surgery, after surgery, or at both points.

That missing piece has left oncologists without definitive guidance on how best to treat their patients with resectable disease. 

Jamie E. Chaft, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist and attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, was “surprised” that the FDA had approved the three immunotherapy combination regimens without this clarity. Clinicians are now left with studies that can’t evaluate the contribution of the neoadjuvant and adjuvant phases, she said.

But that may soon change.

In July, an FDA advisory committee met to discuss the pending approval of durvalumab.

During this July meeting, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) called out issues with AstraZeneca’s design of the trial, expressing concern that AstraZeneca had not followed the agency’s advice to compare patient outcomes with durvalumab in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant phases.

The ODAC panel ultimately voted unanimously in favor of requiring drug companies to demonstrate that patients need immunotherapy both before and after surgery in resectable NSCLC. Several panelists said this requirement should extend beyond NSCLC to other tumor types.

“We need to understand who needs what therapy when,” Daniel Spratt, MD, chairman of the FDA’s ODAC, told Medscape Medical News.

But even if the FDA does require drug companies to assess the benefit of immunotherapy pre- and post-surgery, will oncologists get the answers they need for their patients with resectable NSCLC? Or will the new costly trial design requirements dead-end progress in this space?

 

Treating Patients Without Clear Evidence

Despite the ODAC’s strong urging to require — not simply request — that drug companies show patients with resectable NSCLC benefit from immunotherapy in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, the advisory panel did not think durvalumab’s approval should be delayed until the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant question is answered.

A month later, in August, the FDA approved durvalumab for this indication.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) had already been approved 10 months earlier in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings in this setting. And most recently, in October, the FDA added nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) to these approvals.

No trial, however, identified when patients benefited from the drug.

Without this understanding, patients may be taking immunotherapy unnecessarily, at significant expense and toxicity risk.

“Toxicities from immunotherapy can occur at any time after initiation,” said Joshua Eric Reuss, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Georgetown University’s Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center in Washington, DC. And these “risks definitely continue into the adjuvant period.”

So far, the available evidence does suggest that the neoadjuvant phase of immunotherapy confers the greatest benefit, while adjuvant immunotherapy — which can last a year or longer — may expose patients to more costs and toxicities, with no clear benefit.

A 2024 meta-analysis, which included four trials of neoadjuvant-adjuvant immunotherapy and one trial of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable NSCLC, suggested that the addition of adjuvant immunotherapy did not improve event-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; P = .59) or overall survival (HR, 1.18; P = .51) compared with neoadjuvant immunotherapy alone.

According to Spratt, “It’s very clear that the neoadjuvant phase is the more important of the two phases.” Given that, “we’re probably overtreating some patients,” said Spratt, also chairman of Radiation Oncology at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

Chaft agreed that “there’s very little data that we need the postoperative phase, and what data we do have is post hoc and limited.”

This evidence gap “has created considerable dilemmas” for oncologists and patients who are faced with “the challenge of deciding which therapeutic options or approach are best suited for each individual,” experts wrote in recent consensus recommendations from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Clinicians may ultimately be left to make decisions about prescribing postoperative immunotherapy based on their experience and comfort level.

When Chaft’s patients have a pathologic complete response with immunotherapy and chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant phase, “I’m comfortable stopping because the data would suggest they’re almost certainly cured,” she said.

For patients who have viable disease after neoadjuvant therapy, continuing an immunotherapy postoperatively when it didn’t work preoperatively “is not going to make a difference,” Chaft explained. In these cases, Chaft would look to enroll them in a clinical trial evaluating a different regimen because of the risk for relapse.

With patients who did well preoperatively but still have tumor left at the time of surgery, she would discuss continuing the immunotherapy or participating in a trial, she said.

All the FDA-approved regimens are covered by insurance, said Chaft. Clinicians are most comfortable with pembrolizumab because it is the most widely used immunotherapy in advanced NSCLC, she said. But, she added, “there’s really no strong differentiating data between any of the studies; all the results look very comparable.”

When assessing whether a patient may benefit from immunotherapy after surgery, Reuss looks at a range of factors, including disease stage, histology, gene mutations, and pathologic response. Reuss also weighs patient preferences. A patient coming from another country might only want a neoadjuvant regimen, for instance, he said.

That “isn’t exactly the kind of the level one evidence that one likes to see when making treatment decisions,” said Reuss. “Without prospective data, all we can do is cross-trial comparisons and assessment of subgroups.”

If a new regimen comes along that improves outcomes or decision-making, “I think we would pivot to that in a heartbeat,” he said.

 

But Will FDA Follow ODAC’s Recommendation?

“ODAC has made their point clear,” said Chaft. “Our patients deserve to know that whatever added risk and cost they’re incurring is merited by a clinical outcome.”

Despite the ODAC’s recommendation, it’s not guaranteed that the FDA will follow it.

An FDA spokesperson did not confirm the agency’s decision on the matter but noted that the FDA is “incorporating the panel’s advice.”

Spratt thinks that, going forward, companies will be held to “a higher bar,” but it’s unclear what that bar will look like.

“Whether this is a mandate or a strong recommendation, I think industry is definitely paying attention,” Spratt said. Companies that do not follow the guidance may risk not having their drug approved, “unless it’s just an absolute huge slam dunk of a major benefit to patients.”

In fact, according to Chaft, drug makers seeking approvals of novel entities in this space “won’t have a choice” but to follow any new trial design requirements from the FDA.

Still, getting answers may be a challenge.

Drug companies with immunotherapies already on the market are unlikely to invest the resources to conduct trials comparing the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, said Chaft. “It will take too long and cost too much,” she said.

And it remains unclear whether drug companies will decide to stop pursuing novel agents if approvals will ultimately require more expensive and time-consuming trials.

According to Chaft, oncologists have been discussing protocols that could help fill the knowledge gaps. Such trials will be conducted by the National Cancer Institute’s Cooperative Groups, she noted. But it’s early days.

For the time being, with comparative data from phase 3 trials years away, oncologists will have to work with the limited evidence and individual patients in front of them.

Chaft disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Guardant Health, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and Merck. Reuss disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Arcus, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, CatalYm, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly, and that Georgetown has received research funding from Genentech/Roche, Verastem, Nuvalent, LUNGevity Foundation, Exelixis, Arcus, and Revolution Medicines. Spratt disclosed ties with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The cutting edge of treating solid tumors with cell therapies got notably sharper in 2024.

First came the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in February 2024 of the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy lifileucel in unresectable or metastatic melanoma that had progressed on prior immunotherapy, the first cellular therapy for any solid tumor. Then came the August FDA approval of afamitresgene autoleucel in unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma with failed chemotherapy, the first engineered T-cell therapy for cancers in soft tissue. 

“This was a pipe dream just a decade ago,” Alison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, lead author of a lifileucel study (NCT05640193), said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “At the start of 2024, we had no approvals of these kinds of products in solid cancers. Now we have two.”

As the director of Solid Tumor Cell Therapy and leader of Stanford Medicine’s Melanoma and Cutaneous Oncology Clinical Research Group, Betof Warner has been at the forefront of developing commercial cell therapy using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). 

“The approval of lifileucel increases confidence that we can get these therapies across the regulatory finish line and to patients,” Betof Warner said during the interview. She was not involved in the development of afamitresgene autoleucel.

 

‘Reverse Engineering’

In addition to her contributions to the work that led to lifileucel’s approval, Betof Warner was the lead author on the first consensus guidelines on management and best practices for tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy. 

Betof Warner began studying TILs after doing research with her mentors in immuno-oncology, Jedd D. Wolchok and Michael A. Postow. Their investigations — including one that Betof Warner coauthored — into how monoclonal antibodies and checkpoint inhibitors, such as ipilimumab or nivolumab, might extend the lives of people with advanced unresectable or metastatic melanoma inspired her to push further to find ways to minimize treatment while maximizing outcomes for patients. Betof Warner’s interest overall, she said in the interview, is in capitalizing on what can be learned about how the immune system controls cancer.

“What we know is that the immune system has the ability to kill cancer,” Betof Warner said. “Therefore we need to be thinking about how we can increase immune surveillance. How can we enhance that before a patient develops advanced cancer? 

Betof Warner said that although TILs are now standard treatment in melanoma, there is about a 30% response rate compared with about a 50% response rate in immunotherapy, and the latter is easier for the patient to withstand. 

“Antibodies on the frontline are better than going through a surgery and then waiting weeks to get your therapy,” Betof Warner said in the interview. “You can come into my clinic and get an antibody therapy in 30 minutes and go straight to work. TILs require patients to be in the hospital for weeks at a time and out of work for months at a time.”

In an effort to combine therapies to maximize best outcomes, a phase 3 trial (NCT05727904) is currently recruiting. The TILVANCE-301 trial will compare immunotherapy plus adoptive cell therapy vs immunotherapy alone in untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Betof Warner is not a part of this study.

 

Cell Therapies Include CAR T Cells and TCRT

In general, adoptive T-cell therapies such as TILs involve the isolation of autologous immune cells that are removed from the body and either expanded or modified to optimize their efficacy in fighting antigens, before their transfer to the patient as a living drug by infusion.

In addition to TILs, adoptive cell therapies for antitumor therapeutics include chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells and engineered T-cell receptor therapy (TCRT).

In CAR T-cell therapy and TCRT, naive T cells are harvested from the patient’s blood then engineered to target a tumor. In TIL therapy, tumor-specific T cells are taken from the patient’s tumor. Once extracted, the respective cells are expanded billions of times and then delivered back to the patient’s body, said Betof Warner. 

“The main promise of this approach is to generate responses in what we know as ‘cold’ tumors, or tumors that do not have a lot of endogenous T-cell infiltration or where the T cells are not working well, to bring in tumor targeting T cells and then trigger an immune response,” Betof Warner told an audience at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting.

TIL patients also receive interleukin (IL)-2 infusions to further stimulate the cells. In patients being treated with TCRT, they either receive low or no IL-2, Betof Warner said in her ASCO presentation, “Adopting Cutting-Edge Cell Therapies in Melanoma,” part of the session Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg: Next-Generation Cell-Based Therapies. 

Betof Warner takes Medscape Medical News through the history and ongoing investigations of cellular therapies for solid tumors, including her own research on these treatments. 

 

Decades in the Making

The National Cancer Institute began investigating TILs in the late 1980s, with the current National Cancer Institute (NCI) surgery chief, Steven Rosenberg, MD, PhD, leading the first-ever trials that showed TILs could shrink tumors in people with advanced melanoma.

Since then, NCI staff and others have also investigated TILs beyond melanoma and additional cell therapies based on CAR T cells and TCRT for antitumor therapeutics. 

“TCRs are different from CAR Ts because they go after intracellular antigens instead of extracellular antigens,” said Betof Warner. “That has appeal because many of the tumor antigens we’re looking for will be intracellular.” 

Because CAR T cells only target extracellular antigens, their utility is somewhat limited. Although several CAR T-cell therapies exist for blood cancers, there currently are no approved CAR T-cell therapies for solid tumors. However, several trials of CAR T cells in gastrointestinal cancers and melanoma are ongoing, said Betof Warner, who is not a part of these studies.

“We are starting to see early-phase efficacy in pediatric gliomas,” Betof Warner said, mentioning a study conducted by colleagues at Stanford who demonstrated potential for anti-GD2 CAR T-cell therapy in deadly pediatric diffuse midline gliomas, tumors on the spine and brain.

In their study, nine out of 11 participants (median age, 15 years) showed benefit from the cell therapy, with one participant’s tumors resolving completely. The results paved the way for the FDA to grant a Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation for use of anti-GD2 CAR T cells in H3K27M-positive diffuse midline gliomas. 

The investigators are now recruiting for a phase 1 trial (NCT04196413). Results of the initial study were published in Nature last month.

Another lesser-known cell therapy expected to advance at some point in the future for solid tumors is use of the body’s natural killer (NK) cells. “They’ve been known about for a long time, but they are more difficult to regulate, which is one reason why it has taken longer to make NK cell therapies,” said Betof Warner, who is not involved in the study of NK cells. “One of their advantages is that, potentially, there could be an ‘off the shelf’ NK product. They don’t necessarily have to be made with autologous cells.”

 

Risk-Benefit Profiles Depend on Mechanism of Action

If the corresponding TCR sequence of a tumor antigen is known, said Betof Warner, it is possible to use leukapheresis to generate naive circulating lymphocytes. Once infused, the manufactured TCRTs will activate in the body the same as native cells because the signaling is the same.
An advantage to TCRT compared with CAR T-cell therapy is that it targets intracellular proteins, which are significantly present in the tumor, Betof Warner said in her presentation at ASCO 2024. She clarified that tumors will usually be screened for the presence of this antigen before a patient is selected for treatment with that particular therapy, because not all antigens are highly expressed in every tumor. 

“Furthermore, the tumor antigen has to be presented by a major histocompatibility complex, meaning there are human leukocyte antigen restrictions, which impacts patient selection,” she said.

A risk with both TCRT and CAR T-cell therapy, according to Betof Warner, is that because there are often shared antigens between tumor and normal tissues, on-target/off-tumor toxicity is a risk.

“TILs are different because they are nonengineered, at least not for antigen recognition. They are polyclonal and go after multiple targets,” Betof Warner said. “TCRs and CARs are engineered to go after one target. So, TILs have much lower rates of on-tumor/off-target effects, vs when you engineer a very high affinity receptor like a TCR or CAR.”

A good example of how this amplification of TCR affinity can lead to poor outcomes is in metastatic melanoma, said Betof Warner. 

In investigations (NCI-07-C-0174 and NCI-07-C-0175) of TCRT in metastatic melanoma, for example, the researchers were targeting MART-1 or gp100, which are expressed in melanocytes. 

“The problem was that these antigens are also expressed in the eyes and ears, so it caused eye inflammation and hearing loss in a number of patients because it wasn’t specific enough for the tumor,” said Betof Warner. “So, if that target is highly expressed on normal tissue, then you have a high risk.”

 

Promise of PRAME

Betof Warner said the most promising TCRT at present is the investigational autologous cell therapy IMA203 (NCT03688124), which targets the preferentially expressed antigen (PRAME). Although PRAME is found in many tumors, this testis antigen does not tend to express in normal, healthy adult tissues. Betof Warner is not affiliated with this study. 

“It’s maybe the most exciting TCRT cell in melanoma,” Betof Warner told her audience at the ASCO 2024 meeting. Because the expression rate of PRAME in cutaneous and uveal melanoma is at or above 95% and 90%, respectively, she said “it is a really good target in melanoma.”

Phase 1a results reported in late 2023 from a first-in-human trial of IMA203 involving 13 persons with highly advanced melanoma and a median of 5.5 previous treatments showed a 50% objective response rate in the 12 evaluable results. The duration of response ranged between 2.2 and 14.7 months (median follow-up, 14 months).

The safety profile of the treatment was favorable, with no grade 3 adverse events occurring in more than 10% of the cohort, and no grade 5 adverse events at all.

Phase 1b results published in October by maker Immatics showed that in 28 heavily pretreated metastatic melanoma patients, IMA203 had a confirmed objective response rate of 54% with a median duration of response of 12.1 months, while maintaining a favorable tolerability profile. 

 

Accelerated Approvals, Boxed Warnings

The FDA granted accelerated approvals for both lifileucel, the TIL therapy, and afamitresgene autoleucel, the TCRT. 

Both were approved with boxed warnings. Lifileucel’s warning is for treatment-related mortality, prolonged severe cytopenia, severe infection, and cardiopulmonary and renal impairment. Afamitresgene autoleucel’s boxed warning is for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome, which may be severe or life-threatening.

With these approvals, the bar is now raised on TILs and TCRTs, said Betof Warner.

The lifileucel trial studied 73 patients whose melanoma had continued to metastasize despite treatment with a programmed cell death protein (PD-1)/ programmed death-ligand (PD-L1)–targeted immune checkpoint inhibitor and a BRAF inhibitor (if appropriate based on tumor mutation status), and whose lifileucel dose was at least 7.5 billion cells (the approved dose). The cohort also received a median of six IL-2 (aldesleukin) doses. 

The objective response rate was 31.5% (95% CI, 21.1-43.4), and median duration of response was not reached (lower bound of 95% CI, 4.1).

In the afamitresgene autoleucel study, 44 of 52 patients with synovial sarcoma received leukapheresis and a single infusion of afamitresgene autoleucel. 

The overall response rate was 43.2% (95% CI, 28.4-59.0). The median time to response was 4.9 weeks (95% CI, 4.4-8), and the median duration of response was 6 months (lower bound of 95% CI, 4.6). Among patients who were responsive to the treatment, 45.6% and 39.0% had a duration of response of 6 months or longer and 12 months or longer, respectively.

 

New Hope for Patients

Betof Warner and her colleagues are now recruiting for an open-label, phase 1/2 investigation of the safety and efficacy of the TIL therapy OBX-115 in adult advanced solid tumors in melanoma or non–small cell lung cancer. The first-in-human results of a previous trial were presented at the ASCO 2024 meeting, and OBX-115 received FDA fast track designation in July.

“I think the results are really promising,” said Betof Warner. “This is an engineered TIL that does not require administering IL-2 to the patient. There were four out of the nine patients who responded to the treatment and there were no dose-limiting toxicities, no cytokine and no intracranial — all of which is excellent.”

For Betof Warner, the possibility that by using their own immune system, patients with advanced and refractory cancers could soon have a one-time treatment with a cell therapy rather than innumerable bouts of chemotherapy pushes her onward.

“The idea that we can treat cancer one time and have it not recur for years — that’s pushing the start of saying there’s a cure of cancer. That a person could move on from cancer like they move on from an infection. That is the potential of this work. We’re not there yet, but that’s where we need to think and dream big,” she said.

Betof Warner disclosed consulting/advisory roles with BluePath Solutions, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Medarex, Immatics, Instil Bio, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer and research funding and travel expenses from Iovance Biotherapeutics.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The cutting edge of treating solid tumors with cell therapies got notably sharper in 2024.

First came the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in February 2024 of the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy lifileucel in unresectable or metastatic melanoma that had progressed on prior immunotherapy, the first cellular therapy for any solid tumor. Then came the August FDA approval of afamitresgene autoleucel in unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma with failed chemotherapy, the first engineered T-cell therapy for cancers in soft tissue. 

“This was a pipe dream just a decade ago,” Alison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, lead author of a lifileucel study (NCT05640193), said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “At the start of 2024, we had no approvals of these kinds of products in solid cancers. Now we have two.”

As the director of Solid Tumor Cell Therapy and leader of Stanford Medicine’s Melanoma and Cutaneous Oncology Clinical Research Group, Betof Warner has been at the forefront of developing commercial cell therapy using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). 

“The approval of lifileucel increases confidence that we can get these therapies across the regulatory finish line and to patients,” Betof Warner said during the interview. She was not involved in the development of afamitresgene autoleucel.

 

‘Reverse Engineering’

In addition to her contributions to the work that led to lifileucel’s approval, Betof Warner was the lead author on the first consensus guidelines on management and best practices for tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy. 

Betof Warner began studying TILs after doing research with her mentors in immuno-oncology, Jedd D. Wolchok and Michael A. Postow. Their investigations — including one that Betof Warner coauthored — into how monoclonal antibodies and checkpoint inhibitors, such as ipilimumab or nivolumab, might extend the lives of people with advanced unresectable or metastatic melanoma inspired her to push further to find ways to minimize treatment while maximizing outcomes for patients. Betof Warner’s interest overall, she said in the interview, is in capitalizing on what can be learned about how the immune system controls cancer.

“What we know is that the immune system has the ability to kill cancer,” Betof Warner said. “Therefore we need to be thinking about how we can increase immune surveillance. How can we enhance that before a patient develops advanced cancer? 

Betof Warner said that although TILs are now standard treatment in melanoma, there is about a 30% response rate compared with about a 50% response rate in immunotherapy, and the latter is easier for the patient to withstand. 

“Antibodies on the frontline are better than going through a surgery and then waiting weeks to get your therapy,” Betof Warner said in the interview. “You can come into my clinic and get an antibody therapy in 30 minutes and go straight to work. TILs require patients to be in the hospital for weeks at a time and out of work for months at a time.”

In an effort to combine therapies to maximize best outcomes, a phase 3 trial (NCT05727904) is currently recruiting. The TILVANCE-301 trial will compare immunotherapy plus adoptive cell therapy vs immunotherapy alone in untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Betof Warner is not a part of this study.

 

Cell Therapies Include CAR T Cells and TCRT

In general, adoptive T-cell therapies such as TILs involve the isolation of autologous immune cells that are removed from the body and either expanded or modified to optimize their efficacy in fighting antigens, before their transfer to the patient as a living drug by infusion.

In addition to TILs, adoptive cell therapies for antitumor therapeutics include chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells and engineered T-cell receptor therapy (TCRT).

In CAR T-cell therapy and TCRT, naive T cells are harvested from the patient’s blood then engineered to target a tumor. In TIL therapy, tumor-specific T cells are taken from the patient’s tumor. Once extracted, the respective cells are expanded billions of times and then delivered back to the patient’s body, said Betof Warner. 

“The main promise of this approach is to generate responses in what we know as ‘cold’ tumors, or tumors that do not have a lot of endogenous T-cell infiltration or where the T cells are not working well, to bring in tumor targeting T cells and then trigger an immune response,” Betof Warner told an audience at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting.

TIL patients also receive interleukin (IL)-2 infusions to further stimulate the cells. In patients being treated with TCRT, they either receive low or no IL-2, Betof Warner said in her ASCO presentation, “Adopting Cutting-Edge Cell Therapies in Melanoma,” part of the session Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg: Next-Generation Cell-Based Therapies. 

Betof Warner takes Medscape Medical News through the history and ongoing investigations of cellular therapies for solid tumors, including her own research on these treatments. 

 

Decades in the Making

The National Cancer Institute began investigating TILs in the late 1980s, with the current National Cancer Institute (NCI) surgery chief, Steven Rosenberg, MD, PhD, leading the first-ever trials that showed TILs could shrink tumors in people with advanced melanoma.

Since then, NCI staff and others have also investigated TILs beyond melanoma and additional cell therapies based on CAR T cells and TCRT for antitumor therapeutics. 

“TCRs are different from CAR Ts because they go after intracellular antigens instead of extracellular antigens,” said Betof Warner. “That has appeal because many of the tumor antigens we’re looking for will be intracellular.” 

Because CAR T cells only target extracellular antigens, their utility is somewhat limited. Although several CAR T-cell therapies exist for blood cancers, there currently are no approved CAR T-cell therapies for solid tumors. However, several trials of CAR T cells in gastrointestinal cancers and melanoma are ongoing, said Betof Warner, who is not a part of these studies.

“We are starting to see early-phase efficacy in pediatric gliomas,” Betof Warner said, mentioning a study conducted by colleagues at Stanford who demonstrated potential for anti-GD2 CAR T-cell therapy in deadly pediatric diffuse midline gliomas, tumors on the spine and brain.

In their study, nine out of 11 participants (median age, 15 years) showed benefit from the cell therapy, with one participant’s tumors resolving completely. The results paved the way for the FDA to grant a Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation for use of anti-GD2 CAR T cells in H3K27M-positive diffuse midline gliomas. 

The investigators are now recruiting for a phase 1 trial (NCT04196413). Results of the initial study were published in Nature last month.

Another lesser-known cell therapy expected to advance at some point in the future for solid tumors is use of the body’s natural killer (NK) cells. “They’ve been known about for a long time, but they are more difficult to regulate, which is one reason why it has taken longer to make NK cell therapies,” said Betof Warner, who is not involved in the study of NK cells. “One of their advantages is that, potentially, there could be an ‘off the shelf’ NK product. They don’t necessarily have to be made with autologous cells.”

 

Risk-Benefit Profiles Depend on Mechanism of Action

If the corresponding TCR sequence of a tumor antigen is known, said Betof Warner, it is possible to use leukapheresis to generate naive circulating lymphocytes. Once infused, the manufactured TCRTs will activate in the body the same as native cells because the signaling is the same.
An advantage to TCRT compared with CAR T-cell therapy is that it targets intracellular proteins, which are significantly present in the tumor, Betof Warner said in her presentation at ASCO 2024. She clarified that tumors will usually be screened for the presence of this antigen before a patient is selected for treatment with that particular therapy, because not all antigens are highly expressed in every tumor. 

“Furthermore, the tumor antigen has to be presented by a major histocompatibility complex, meaning there are human leukocyte antigen restrictions, which impacts patient selection,” she said.

A risk with both TCRT and CAR T-cell therapy, according to Betof Warner, is that because there are often shared antigens between tumor and normal tissues, on-target/off-tumor toxicity is a risk.

“TILs are different because they are nonengineered, at least not for antigen recognition. They are polyclonal and go after multiple targets,” Betof Warner said. “TCRs and CARs are engineered to go after one target. So, TILs have much lower rates of on-tumor/off-target effects, vs when you engineer a very high affinity receptor like a TCR or CAR.”

A good example of how this amplification of TCR affinity can lead to poor outcomes is in metastatic melanoma, said Betof Warner. 

In investigations (NCI-07-C-0174 and NCI-07-C-0175) of TCRT in metastatic melanoma, for example, the researchers were targeting MART-1 or gp100, which are expressed in melanocytes. 

“The problem was that these antigens are also expressed in the eyes and ears, so it caused eye inflammation and hearing loss in a number of patients because it wasn’t specific enough for the tumor,” said Betof Warner. “So, if that target is highly expressed on normal tissue, then you have a high risk.”

 

Promise of PRAME

Betof Warner said the most promising TCRT at present is the investigational autologous cell therapy IMA203 (NCT03688124), which targets the preferentially expressed antigen (PRAME). Although PRAME is found in many tumors, this testis antigen does not tend to express in normal, healthy adult tissues. Betof Warner is not affiliated with this study. 

“It’s maybe the most exciting TCRT cell in melanoma,” Betof Warner told her audience at the ASCO 2024 meeting. Because the expression rate of PRAME in cutaneous and uveal melanoma is at or above 95% and 90%, respectively, she said “it is a really good target in melanoma.”

Phase 1a results reported in late 2023 from a first-in-human trial of IMA203 involving 13 persons with highly advanced melanoma and a median of 5.5 previous treatments showed a 50% objective response rate in the 12 evaluable results. The duration of response ranged between 2.2 and 14.7 months (median follow-up, 14 months).

The safety profile of the treatment was favorable, with no grade 3 adverse events occurring in more than 10% of the cohort, and no grade 5 adverse events at all.

Phase 1b results published in October by maker Immatics showed that in 28 heavily pretreated metastatic melanoma patients, IMA203 had a confirmed objective response rate of 54% with a median duration of response of 12.1 months, while maintaining a favorable tolerability profile. 

 

Accelerated Approvals, Boxed Warnings

The FDA granted accelerated approvals for both lifileucel, the TIL therapy, and afamitresgene autoleucel, the TCRT. 

Both were approved with boxed warnings. Lifileucel’s warning is for treatment-related mortality, prolonged severe cytopenia, severe infection, and cardiopulmonary and renal impairment. Afamitresgene autoleucel’s boxed warning is for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome, which may be severe or life-threatening.

With these approvals, the bar is now raised on TILs and TCRTs, said Betof Warner.

The lifileucel trial studied 73 patients whose melanoma had continued to metastasize despite treatment with a programmed cell death protein (PD-1)/ programmed death-ligand (PD-L1)–targeted immune checkpoint inhibitor and a BRAF inhibitor (if appropriate based on tumor mutation status), and whose lifileucel dose was at least 7.5 billion cells (the approved dose). The cohort also received a median of six IL-2 (aldesleukin) doses. 

The objective response rate was 31.5% (95% CI, 21.1-43.4), and median duration of response was not reached (lower bound of 95% CI, 4.1).

In the afamitresgene autoleucel study, 44 of 52 patients with synovial sarcoma received leukapheresis and a single infusion of afamitresgene autoleucel. 

The overall response rate was 43.2% (95% CI, 28.4-59.0). The median time to response was 4.9 weeks (95% CI, 4.4-8), and the median duration of response was 6 months (lower bound of 95% CI, 4.6). Among patients who were responsive to the treatment, 45.6% and 39.0% had a duration of response of 6 months or longer and 12 months or longer, respectively.

 

New Hope for Patients

Betof Warner and her colleagues are now recruiting for an open-label, phase 1/2 investigation of the safety and efficacy of the TIL therapy OBX-115 in adult advanced solid tumors in melanoma or non–small cell lung cancer. The first-in-human results of a previous trial were presented at the ASCO 2024 meeting, and OBX-115 received FDA fast track designation in July.

“I think the results are really promising,” said Betof Warner. “This is an engineered TIL that does not require administering IL-2 to the patient. There were four out of the nine patients who responded to the treatment and there were no dose-limiting toxicities, no cytokine and no intracranial — all of which is excellent.”

For Betof Warner, the possibility that by using their own immune system, patients with advanced and refractory cancers could soon have a one-time treatment with a cell therapy rather than innumerable bouts of chemotherapy pushes her onward.

“The idea that we can treat cancer one time and have it not recur for years — that’s pushing the start of saying there’s a cure of cancer. That a person could move on from cancer like they move on from an infection. That is the potential of this work. We’re not there yet, but that’s where we need to think and dream big,” she said.

Betof Warner disclosed consulting/advisory roles with BluePath Solutions, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Medarex, Immatics, Instil Bio, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer and research funding and travel expenses from Iovance Biotherapeutics.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The cutting edge of treating solid tumors with cell therapies got notably sharper in 2024.

First came the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in February 2024 of the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy lifileucel in unresectable or metastatic melanoma that had progressed on prior immunotherapy, the first cellular therapy for any solid tumor. Then came the August FDA approval of afamitresgene autoleucel in unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma with failed chemotherapy, the first engineered T-cell therapy for cancers in soft tissue. 

“This was a pipe dream just a decade ago,” Alison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, lead author of a lifileucel study (NCT05640193), said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “At the start of 2024, we had no approvals of these kinds of products in solid cancers. Now we have two.”

As the director of Solid Tumor Cell Therapy and leader of Stanford Medicine’s Melanoma and Cutaneous Oncology Clinical Research Group, Betof Warner has been at the forefront of developing commercial cell therapy using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). 

“The approval of lifileucel increases confidence that we can get these therapies across the regulatory finish line and to patients,” Betof Warner said during the interview. She was not involved in the development of afamitresgene autoleucel.

 

‘Reverse Engineering’

In addition to her contributions to the work that led to lifileucel’s approval, Betof Warner was the lead author on the first consensus guidelines on management and best practices for tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy. 

Betof Warner began studying TILs after doing research with her mentors in immuno-oncology, Jedd D. Wolchok and Michael A. Postow. Their investigations — including one that Betof Warner coauthored — into how monoclonal antibodies and checkpoint inhibitors, such as ipilimumab or nivolumab, might extend the lives of people with advanced unresectable or metastatic melanoma inspired her to push further to find ways to minimize treatment while maximizing outcomes for patients. Betof Warner’s interest overall, she said in the interview, is in capitalizing on what can be learned about how the immune system controls cancer.

“What we know is that the immune system has the ability to kill cancer,” Betof Warner said. “Therefore we need to be thinking about how we can increase immune surveillance. How can we enhance that before a patient develops advanced cancer? 

Betof Warner said that although TILs are now standard treatment in melanoma, there is about a 30% response rate compared with about a 50% response rate in immunotherapy, and the latter is easier for the patient to withstand. 

“Antibodies on the frontline are better than going through a surgery and then waiting weeks to get your therapy,” Betof Warner said in the interview. “You can come into my clinic and get an antibody therapy in 30 minutes and go straight to work. TILs require patients to be in the hospital for weeks at a time and out of work for months at a time.”

In an effort to combine therapies to maximize best outcomes, a phase 3 trial (NCT05727904) is currently recruiting. The TILVANCE-301 trial will compare immunotherapy plus adoptive cell therapy vs immunotherapy alone in untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Betof Warner is not a part of this study.

 

Cell Therapies Include CAR T Cells and TCRT

In general, adoptive T-cell therapies such as TILs involve the isolation of autologous immune cells that are removed from the body and either expanded or modified to optimize their efficacy in fighting antigens, before their transfer to the patient as a living drug by infusion.

In addition to TILs, adoptive cell therapies for antitumor therapeutics include chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells and engineered T-cell receptor therapy (TCRT).

In CAR T-cell therapy and TCRT, naive T cells are harvested from the patient’s blood then engineered to target a tumor. In TIL therapy, tumor-specific T cells are taken from the patient’s tumor. Once extracted, the respective cells are expanded billions of times and then delivered back to the patient’s body, said Betof Warner. 

“The main promise of this approach is to generate responses in what we know as ‘cold’ tumors, or tumors that do not have a lot of endogenous T-cell infiltration or where the T cells are not working well, to bring in tumor targeting T cells and then trigger an immune response,” Betof Warner told an audience at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting.

TIL patients also receive interleukin (IL)-2 infusions to further stimulate the cells. In patients being treated with TCRT, they either receive low or no IL-2, Betof Warner said in her ASCO presentation, “Adopting Cutting-Edge Cell Therapies in Melanoma,” part of the session Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg: Next-Generation Cell-Based Therapies. 

Betof Warner takes Medscape Medical News through the history and ongoing investigations of cellular therapies for solid tumors, including her own research on these treatments. 

 

Decades in the Making

The National Cancer Institute began investigating TILs in the late 1980s, with the current National Cancer Institute (NCI) surgery chief, Steven Rosenberg, MD, PhD, leading the first-ever trials that showed TILs could shrink tumors in people with advanced melanoma.

Since then, NCI staff and others have also investigated TILs beyond melanoma and additional cell therapies based on CAR T cells and TCRT for antitumor therapeutics. 

“TCRs are different from CAR Ts because they go after intracellular antigens instead of extracellular antigens,” said Betof Warner. “That has appeal because many of the tumor antigens we’re looking for will be intracellular.” 

Because CAR T cells only target extracellular antigens, their utility is somewhat limited. Although several CAR T-cell therapies exist for blood cancers, there currently are no approved CAR T-cell therapies for solid tumors. However, several trials of CAR T cells in gastrointestinal cancers and melanoma are ongoing, said Betof Warner, who is not a part of these studies.

“We are starting to see early-phase efficacy in pediatric gliomas,” Betof Warner said, mentioning a study conducted by colleagues at Stanford who demonstrated potential for anti-GD2 CAR T-cell therapy in deadly pediatric diffuse midline gliomas, tumors on the spine and brain.

In their study, nine out of 11 participants (median age, 15 years) showed benefit from the cell therapy, with one participant’s tumors resolving completely. The results paved the way for the FDA to grant a Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation for use of anti-GD2 CAR T cells in H3K27M-positive diffuse midline gliomas. 

The investigators are now recruiting for a phase 1 trial (NCT04196413). Results of the initial study were published in Nature last month.

Another lesser-known cell therapy expected to advance at some point in the future for solid tumors is use of the body’s natural killer (NK) cells. “They’ve been known about for a long time, but they are more difficult to regulate, which is one reason why it has taken longer to make NK cell therapies,” said Betof Warner, who is not involved in the study of NK cells. “One of their advantages is that, potentially, there could be an ‘off the shelf’ NK product. They don’t necessarily have to be made with autologous cells.”

 

Risk-Benefit Profiles Depend on Mechanism of Action

If the corresponding TCR sequence of a tumor antigen is known, said Betof Warner, it is possible to use leukapheresis to generate naive circulating lymphocytes. Once infused, the manufactured TCRTs will activate in the body the same as native cells because the signaling is the same.
An advantage to TCRT compared with CAR T-cell therapy is that it targets intracellular proteins, which are significantly present in the tumor, Betof Warner said in her presentation at ASCO 2024. She clarified that tumors will usually be screened for the presence of this antigen before a patient is selected for treatment with that particular therapy, because not all antigens are highly expressed in every tumor. 

“Furthermore, the tumor antigen has to be presented by a major histocompatibility complex, meaning there are human leukocyte antigen restrictions, which impacts patient selection,” she said.

A risk with both TCRT and CAR T-cell therapy, according to Betof Warner, is that because there are often shared antigens between tumor and normal tissues, on-target/off-tumor toxicity is a risk.

“TILs are different because they are nonengineered, at least not for antigen recognition. They are polyclonal and go after multiple targets,” Betof Warner said. “TCRs and CARs are engineered to go after one target. So, TILs have much lower rates of on-tumor/off-target effects, vs when you engineer a very high affinity receptor like a TCR or CAR.”

A good example of how this amplification of TCR affinity can lead to poor outcomes is in metastatic melanoma, said Betof Warner. 

In investigations (NCI-07-C-0174 and NCI-07-C-0175) of TCRT in metastatic melanoma, for example, the researchers were targeting MART-1 or gp100, which are expressed in melanocytes. 

“The problem was that these antigens are also expressed in the eyes and ears, so it caused eye inflammation and hearing loss in a number of patients because it wasn’t specific enough for the tumor,” said Betof Warner. “So, if that target is highly expressed on normal tissue, then you have a high risk.”

 

Promise of PRAME

Betof Warner said the most promising TCRT at present is the investigational autologous cell therapy IMA203 (NCT03688124), which targets the preferentially expressed antigen (PRAME). Although PRAME is found in many tumors, this testis antigen does not tend to express in normal, healthy adult tissues. Betof Warner is not affiliated with this study. 

“It’s maybe the most exciting TCRT cell in melanoma,” Betof Warner told her audience at the ASCO 2024 meeting. Because the expression rate of PRAME in cutaneous and uveal melanoma is at or above 95% and 90%, respectively, she said “it is a really good target in melanoma.”

Phase 1a results reported in late 2023 from a first-in-human trial of IMA203 involving 13 persons with highly advanced melanoma and a median of 5.5 previous treatments showed a 50% objective response rate in the 12 evaluable results. The duration of response ranged between 2.2 and 14.7 months (median follow-up, 14 months).

The safety profile of the treatment was favorable, with no grade 3 adverse events occurring in more than 10% of the cohort, and no grade 5 adverse events at all.

Phase 1b results published in October by maker Immatics showed that in 28 heavily pretreated metastatic melanoma patients, IMA203 had a confirmed objective response rate of 54% with a median duration of response of 12.1 months, while maintaining a favorable tolerability profile. 

 

Accelerated Approvals, Boxed Warnings

The FDA granted accelerated approvals for both lifileucel, the TIL therapy, and afamitresgene autoleucel, the TCRT. 

Both were approved with boxed warnings. Lifileucel’s warning is for treatment-related mortality, prolonged severe cytopenia, severe infection, and cardiopulmonary and renal impairment. Afamitresgene autoleucel’s boxed warning is for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome, which may be severe or life-threatening.

With these approvals, the bar is now raised on TILs and TCRTs, said Betof Warner.

The lifileucel trial studied 73 patients whose melanoma had continued to metastasize despite treatment with a programmed cell death protein (PD-1)/ programmed death-ligand (PD-L1)–targeted immune checkpoint inhibitor and a BRAF inhibitor (if appropriate based on tumor mutation status), and whose lifileucel dose was at least 7.5 billion cells (the approved dose). The cohort also received a median of six IL-2 (aldesleukin) doses. 

The objective response rate was 31.5% (95% CI, 21.1-43.4), and median duration of response was not reached (lower bound of 95% CI, 4.1).

In the afamitresgene autoleucel study, 44 of 52 patients with synovial sarcoma received leukapheresis and a single infusion of afamitresgene autoleucel. 

The overall response rate was 43.2% (95% CI, 28.4-59.0). The median time to response was 4.9 weeks (95% CI, 4.4-8), and the median duration of response was 6 months (lower bound of 95% CI, 4.6). Among patients who were responsive to the treatment, 45.6% and 39.0% had a duration of response of 6 months or longer and 12 months or longer, respectively.

 

New Hope for Patients

Betof Warner and her colleagues are now recruiting for an open-label, phase 1/2 investigation of the safety and efficacy of the TIL therapy OBX-115 in adult advanced solid tumors in melanoma or non–small cell lung cancer. The first-in-human results of a previous trial were presented at the ASCO 2024 meeting, and OBX-115 received FDA fast track designation in July.

“I think the results are really promising,” said Betof Warner. “This is an engineered TIL that does not require administering IL-2 to the patient. There were four out of the nine patients who responded to the treatment and there were no dose-limiting toxicities, no cytokine and no intracranial — all of which is excellent.”

For Betof Warner, the possibility that by using their own immune system, patients with advanced and refractory cancers could soon have a one-time treatment with a cell therapy rather than innumerable bouts of chemotherapy pushes her onward.

“The idea that we can treat cancer one time and have it not recur for years — that’s pushing the start of saying there’s a cure of cancer. That a person could move on from cancer like they move on from an infection. That is the potential of this work. We’re not there yet, but that’s where we need to think and dream big,” she said.

Betof Warner disclosed consulting/advisory roles with BluePath Solutions, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Medarex, Immatics, Instil Bio, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer and research funding and travel expenses from Iovance Biotherapeutics.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A brief self-guided online cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) intervention was noninferior to comprehensive clinician-guided CBT in reducing symptoms in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), with both groups showing similar improvements on the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a single-blind randomized clinical noninferiority trial at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, enrolling 168 adults with AD (mean age, 39 years; 84.5% women) from November 2022 to April 2023.
• Participants were randomly assigned to either a 12-week self-guided online CBT intervention (n = 86) without clinician support or a comprehensive 12-week clinician-guided online CBT program (n = 82).
• The primary outcome was the change in POEM score from baseline; reduction of 4 or more points was considered a response, and the predefined noninferiority margin was 3 points.

TAKEAWAY:

• The clinician-guided group improved by 4.20 points on POEM, while the self-guided group improved by 4.60 points, with an estimated mean difference in change of 0.36 points, which was below noninferiority margin.
• Clinicians spent a mean of 36 minutes on treatment guidance and an additional 14 minutes on assessments in the clinician-guided group, whereas they spent only 15.8 minutes on assessments in the self-guided group.
• Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life, sleep, depressive mood, pruritus, and stress, with no serious adverse events being reported.
• Completion rates were higher in the self-guided group with 81% of participants completing five or more modules, compared with 67% in the clinician-guided group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, the findings support a self-guided intervention as a noninferior and cost-effective alternative to a previously evaluated clinician-guided treatment,” the authors wrote. “Because psychological interventions are rare in dermatological care, this study is an important step toward implementation of CBT for people with AD. The effectiveness of CBT interventions in primary and dermatological specialist care should be investigated.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dorian Kern, PhD, Division of Psychology, Karolinska Institutet, and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

High data loss for secondary measurements could affect interpretation of these results. The study relied solely on self-reported measures. The predominance of women participants and the Swedish-language requirement may have limited participation from migrant populations, which could hinder the broader implementation of the study’s findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Kern reported receiving grants from the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs during the conduct of the study. Other authors also reported authorships and royalties, personal fees, grants, or held stocks in DahliaQomit.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A brief self-guided online cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) intervention was noninferior to comprehensive clinician-guided CBT in reducing symptoms in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), with both groups showing similar improvements on the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a single-blind randomized clinical noninferiority trial at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, enrolling 168 adults with AD (mean age, 39 years; 84.5% women) from November 2022 to April 2023.
• Participants were randomly assigned to either a 12-week self-guided online CBT intervention (n = 86) without clinician support or a comprehensive 12-week clinician-guided online CBT program (n = 82).
• The primary outcome was the change in POEM score from baseline; reduction of 4 or more points was considered a response, and the predefined noninferiority margin was 3 points.

TAKEAWAY:

• The clinician-guided group improved by 4.20 points on POEM, while the self-guided group improved by 4.60 points, with an estimated mean difference in change of 0.36 points, which was below noninferiority margin.
• Clinicians spent a mean of 36 minutes on treatment guidance and an additional 14 minutes on assessments in the clinician-guided group, whereas they spent only 15.8 minutes on assessments in the self-guided group.
• Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life, sleep, depressive mood, pruritus, and stress, with no serious adverse events being reported.
• Completion rates were higher in the self-guided group with 81% of participants completing five or more modules, compared with 67% in the clinician-guided group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, the findings support a self-guided intervention as a noninferior and cost-effective alternative to a previously evaluated clinician-guided treatment,” the authors wrote. “Because psychological interventions are rare in dermatological care, this study is an important step toward implementation of CBT for people with AD. The effectiveness of CBT interventions in primary and dermatological specialist care should be investigated.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dorian Kern, PhD, Division of Psychology, Karolinska Institutet, and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

High data loss for secondary measurements could affect interpretation of these results. The study relied solely on self-reported measures. The predominance of women participants and the Swedish-language requirement may have limited participation from migrant populations, which could hinder the broader implementation of the study’s findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Kern reported receiving grants from the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs during the conduct of the study. Other authors also reported authorships and royalties, personal fees, grants, or held stocks in DahliaQomit.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A brief self-guided online cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) intervention was noninferior to comprehensive clinician-guided CBT in reducing symptoms in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), with both groups showing similar improvements on the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a single-blind randomized clinical noninferiority trial at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, enrolling 168 adults with AD (mean age, 39 years; 84.5% women) from November 2022 to April 2023.
• Participants were randomly assigned to either a 12-week self-guided online CBT intervention (n = 86) without clinician support or a comprehensive 12-week clinician-guided online CBT program (n = 82).
• The primary outcome was the change in POEM score from baseline; reduction of 4 or more points was considered a response, and the predefined noninferiority margin was 3 points.

TAKEAWAY:

• The clinician-guided group improved by 4.20 points on POEM, while the self-guided group improved by 4.60 points, with an estimated mean difference in change of 0.36 points, which was below noninferiority margin.
• Clinicians spent a mean of 36 minutes on treatment guidance and an additional 14 minutes on assessments in the clinician-guided group, whereas they spent only 15.8 minutes on assessments in the self-guided group.
• Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life, sleep, depressive mood, pruritus, and stress, with no serious adverse events being reported.
• Completion rates were higher in the self-guided group with 81% of participants completing five or more modules, compared with 67% in the clinician-guided group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, the findings support a self-guided intervention as a noninferior and cost-effective alternative to a previously evaluated clinician-guided treatment,” the authors wrote. “Because psychological interventions are rare in dermatological care, this study is an important step toward implementation of CBT for people with AD. The effectiveness of CBT interventions in primary and dermatological specialist care should be investigated.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dorian Kern, PhD, Division of Psychology, Karolinska Institutet, and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

High data loss for secondary measurements could affect interpretation of these results. The study relied solely on self-reported measures. The predominance of women participants and the Swedish-language requirement may have limited participation from migrant populations, which could hinder the broader implementation of the study’s findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Kern reported receiving grants from the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs during the conduct of the study. Other authors also reported authorships and royalties, personal fees, grants, or held stocks in DahliaQomit.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A survey of dermatologists found that although all respondents receive inpatient central line dressing (CLD)-related consults, most lack standardized protocols for managing adverse skin reactions and reported varying management approaches.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers developed and administered a 14-item Qualtrics survey to 107 dermatologists providing pediatric inpatient care through the Society for Pediatric Dermatology’s Inpatient Dermatology Section and Section Chief email lists.
• A total of 35 dermatologists (33%) from multiple institutions responded to the survey; most respondents (94%) specialized in pediatric dermatology.
• Researchers assessed management of CLD-associated adverse skin reactions.

TAKEAWAY:

• All respondents reported receiving CLD-related consults, but 66% indicated there was no personal or institutional standardized approach for managing CLD-associated skin reactions.
• Respondents said most reactions were in children aged 1-12 years (19 or 76% of 25 respondents) compared with those aged < 1 year (3 or 12% of 25 respondents).
• Management strategies included switching to alternative products, applying topical corticosteroids, and performing patch testing for allergies. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Insights derived from this study, including variation in clinician familiarity with reaction patterns, underscore the necessity of a standardized protocol for classifying and managing cutaneous CLD reactions in pediatric patients,” the authors wrote. “Further investigation is needed to better characterize CLD-associated allergic CD [contact dermatitis], irritant CD, and skin infections, as well as at-risk populations, to better inform clinical approaches,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Carly Mulinda, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and was published online on December 16 in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted variable respondent awareness of institutional CLD and potential recency bias as key limitations of the study.

DISCLOSURES:

Study funding source was not declared. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A survey of dermatologists found that although all respondents receive inpatient central line dressing (CLD)-related consults, most lack standardized protocols for managing adverse skin reactions and reported varying management approaches.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers developed and administered a 14-item Qualtrics survey to 107 dermatologists providing pediatric inpatient care through the Society for Pediatric Dermatology’s Inpatient Dermatology Section and Section Chief email lists.
• A total of 35 dermatologists (33%) from multiple institutions responded to the survey; most respondents (94%) specialized in pediatric dermatology.
• Researchers assessed management of CLD-associated adverse skin reactions.

TAKEAWAY:

• All respondents reported receiving CLD-related consults, but 66% indicated there was no personal or institutional standardized approach for managing CLD-associated skin reactions.
• Respondents said most reactions were in children aged 1-12 years (19 or 76% of 25 respondents) compared with those aged < 1 year (3 or 12% of 25 respondents).
• Management strategies included switching to alternative products, applying topical corticosteroids, and performing patch testing for allergies. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Insights derived from this study, including variation in clinician familiarity with reaction patterns, underscore the necessity of a standardized protocol for classifying and managing cutaneous CLD reactions in pediatric patients,” the authors wrote. “Further investigation is needed to better characterize CLD-associated allergic CD [contact dermatitis], irritant CD, and skin infections, as well as at-risk populations, to better inform clinical approaches,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Carly Mulinda, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and was published online on December 16 in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted variable respondent awareness of institutional CLD and potential recency bias as key limitations of the study.

DISCLOSURES:

Study funding source was not declared. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A survey of dermatologists found that although all respondents receive inpatient central line dressing (CLD)-related consults, most lack standardized protocols for managing adverse skin reactions and reported varying management approaches.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers developed and administered a 14-item Qualtrics survey to 107 dermatologists providing pediatric inpatient care through the Society for Pediatric Dermatology’s Inpatient Dermatology Section and Section Chief email lists.
• A total of 35 dermatologists (33%) from multiple institutions responded to the survey; most respondents (94%) specialized in pediatric dermatology.
• Researchers assessed management of CLD-associated adverse skin reactions.

TAKEAWAY:

• All respondents reported receiving CLD-related consults, but 66% indicated there was no personal or institutional standardized approach for managing CLD-associated skin reactions.
• Respondents said most reactions were in children aged 1-12 years (19 or 76% of 25 respondents) compared with those aged < 1 year (3 or 12% of 25 respondents).
• Management strategies included switching to alternative products, applying topical corticosteroids, and performing patch testing for allergies. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Insights derived from this study, including variation in clinician familiarity with reaction patterns, underscore the necessity of a standardized protocol for classifying and managing cutaneous CLD reactions in pediatric patients,” the authors wrote. “Further investigation is needed to better characterize CLD-associated allergic CD [contact dermatitis], irritant CD, and skin infections, as well as at-risk populations, to better inform clinical approaches,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Carly Mulinda, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and was published online on December 16 in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted variable respondent awareness of institutional CLD and potential recency bias as key limitations of the study.

DISCLOSURES:

Study funding source was not declared. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.